Quake3World

we're debating about evolution, I'm a athiest and believe in it, he's a christian and disagrees


me (03:07:41 pm): okay
me: so why is evolution so silly, and that you, an adolescent, have to disprove the study of acclaimed scientists?

him: how has an adolescent such as yourself understand and has put it into perspective himself to see it as fact
me: I've read the works of both arguements, and
me: I find that the works of such scientists disprove that of works against the idea of evolution.
him: so if i give you examples
him: and analogies
me: alright
him: can you take your facts and disprove me?
me: the bible argues that the earth has been here
me: for but a few thousand years
him: what scripture was that?
me): yet the discoveries of science, argue that their findings have evidence of the earth being far longer
him: i've never read the bible
me: I don't know, but you can ask a bible thumper, he'll tell all he knows
him: the mystery of evolution is a huge one, kinda like the other mysterys of our understanding of the world around us
him: alright well unless you can show me its inadequate isnt it? i wasnt debating about the bible. the bible is a bunch of books written by many differnet authors. it wasnt what i wasnt geting at about evolution
me: such as was the world being round or not
me: I know, but that was an example
me: of the arguement against evolutin
him: it wasnt too long ago we thought the world was flat right?
me: evolution*
me: no I don't believe so
him: dont worry about mispelling its not a spelling contest
him: so if i give you a few questions and analogies can your science prove me wrong?
me: well I've given you one of the reason's I believe in it
me: I'd like to hear one of yours
him: alright
him: let me think
him: so if you beleive in evolution then you think that given enough time anything can happen?
me: give me an example
him: lets say your on a beach with sof golden sand
him: and your given a wheel barrow full of the sand
Big Sean Trouble (03:41:01 pm): in it is burried one grain of red sand
him: you can dump and refill and dump the wheel barrow for the rest of eternity
him: or longer if you like
him: question
him: will the one grain of red sand ever end up on the top of the pile?
me: the pile, which would be the beach that consists of the soft, lucious, golden sand of the gods?
him: collin its suppsoed to be a friendly debate not sarcasm and no answers to my question
him: probability says yes because the one grain must end up on top so its reasonable to assume that given enough amount of time the grain of sand will end up on top eventually right?
me: okay, sure.
him: so in other things fo outcome is required
him: do you think that given enough amount of time the sand you dumb out would ever form a sand castle on its own? what is your reasoning?
me: form a sand castle of its own? Nothing but just the sand? No, I don't think so, has sand ever taken the form of a sand castle on its own? Not that I know of.
him: integrated circuits are childs play compared to DNA but can you even imagine sand combining to create sillicon chips through random process??
him: Yes I could.
me: how likely is it that a bunch of chemicals came together to form life on their own?
him: how could you
me: It's a possibility, how likely is it that an all powerful being in a robe with a bear put us here?
me: as for the sand
me: I seemed to have overlooked that statement, the sand on its own?
me: what's random suppose to mean? People experimenting?
him: random process is all about evolution
him: so disinguish the natural from the supernatural
him: throughought the univers you see endless examples of natural proccesses leading to more randomness and lower states of energy
him: from what life started from etc or ''APPARENTLY''
him: have you ever observed anything in nature that would lead you to beleive that random proccesses produce structures showing design and prupose like DNA or like you. from non-living matter? if not how did non living matter get organized into living matter to begin with?
me: There's a theory that could explain it
him: and whats that?
him: the abiogenesis theory?
me: yes
him: have you seen the hopeless odds of life that have been calculated?
me: yes
him: like 1040,000
him: alright
him: pretty hopeless huh?
me: yes
him: lets say you place a bet in the lotto
him: and you bet that the theory is right
me: k
him: and you win!
me: WOO
him: and assume for a moment that they are right we're still left with a few problems
me: oh no
him: Some supporters of evolution as an explanation for life's origins present a case that the probabilities of life forming on its own are much better than for you winning the lotto perhaps only one in a million (106) instead of the hopeless odds of one in 1040,000 calculated by astrophysicist fred hoyle
me: OMG
him: life forming on its own is a remote probability, but the estimates of the probabilities involved are subject to a wide range of assumptions. abiogenesis theory greatly reduces the odds by assuming that life formed in a series of steps, from the simplest of molecules to the first cell.
him: okay so you win the bet right and the problems
him: sorry for the confusion
me: aw man
him: ?
me: What do mean by confusion?
him: okay good your not confused
me: was that your argument?
him: if the odds that life formed on its own are one in a million then arent the odds for the other alernative life not being formed on its own via divine creation a million to one? what rational person would choose the first bet over the second bet?
me: I don't know
him: even if the odds were shown to be far more favorable yet we'd still be left with this question : how is it that the natural laws of the universe are so precisely predisposed to make the formation of life so incredibly easy? isnt this strong evidence of design in and of itself?
me: sure
him: there is no evidence that all the intermediate steps proposed by abiogenesis thoery can exsist in nature. a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which is based on fact and not faith has not been written. and even though we cant control it or measure it there uis evidence of Gods exsistence! from miraculous healings in response to prayer to faith itself, which is awareness and evidence of an external force. where is our faith best placed: in incredible odds or in an incredible god?
him: and as far as that faithful healing goes collin
him: i am no liar
him: and i tell you i didnt always beleive in god but a few things have happened to me which lead me to beleive in him after i saught him because i was completely miserable
him: you could put a frog in a blender and have not only all the essential proteins for life but complete cells that surpass any dreamed of by abiogenesis theory. what you wont have however is life. dead cells remain dead no matter what is done to them. life does not simply consist of a mere assemblage of the right compounds or proteins. its a dunamic system of unparalleld precision in design. from the simplest of cell to human beings. and just as with a car found running, dont we still have to ask, ''who turned the key?''
me: alright, so let's say god put us here, how did god get here?
him: man i wish i could answer that question collin but like i said a few things happened that lead me to knowing him
him: no amount of science can disprove him to me
him: but there are things in life and science which further strengthen my faith
him: want some examples?
me: sure
him: alright
him: theres alot of flowering plants that have evolved symiotic relationships with specific insects for cross pollenization in order to reproduce
him: keep in mind i say evolved sarcasticly
him: and now isay sarcasticly
him: to all those evolving flowering plants whose symbiotic insects didnt evolve soon enough to enable them to reproduce
him: want more?
me: sure
him: okay
him: cas have whiskers the same width as there bodies allowing them to know if they will get stuck in small places before they enter
him: to all those evolving cats with undersized whiskers who got stuck escaping to small places were devoured from behind
me: okay, those whiskers could've been cut from fights,
him: okay fine
me: there can be genetic mutations too
him: sharks have highly developed senses enabling them to detect one part blood in one million parts of water enabling them to find prey at great distances
him: to all those sharks who went hunry because there nose for blood was only as good as motorlas famoussigma quality program
him: heres somthing i read about giraffs once
me: what, how can a shark not have been able to feed,
him: they have to cope with the problem of excess blood pressure when bending over
him: they have elastic blood vessels to accomodate exess blood when the head is lowerd
him: a highly specialized vessel near the brain acts as a spong slowly absorbing blood until the pressure warns the animal to lift its head before damage occurs
him: a unique system of balves that prevent backflow solves the problem of fluctuating pressure or somthing
him: so collin
him: to all those giraffes who passed out and drowned while tryuing to get a drink of water and those who couldnt reproduce because theyre mates always had a headache
me: lol
him: yeah dude.
him: and about mutations
him: ading genetic information creating new and advantagous characteristics
me: alright, let's say a human has passed out and died from excessive running
me: whereas, one did not from excessive running,
me: why did the other one die?
him: then what about the mutations demonstrating a loss of gentic information causing crippling deformities
me: what about them
him: these examples i give you are highly sophisticated and intellegently designed things as for 2 humans running one could have had a bad heart or didnt eat enough
me: okay
me: so how could a giraffe die
me: from drinking water
him: i am arguing for creation remember
him: okay let me say it again
him: when they bend there head over they have very small elastic blood vessels to accomodate excess blood when the head is lowered a highly speicialized bessel near the brain acts as a sponge. slowly absorbing blood until the pressure wanrns the animal to lift its head before damage occurs. a unique susyem of valves that prevent backflow on there head and keep them from dying
him: because theyre necks are so long
him: why would they develop into somthing that ridiculous?
me: to have long necks?
him: ui am giving you examples what seems more rationable random adaptation or created with intellegence and prupose
me: I know this, I was asking if the length of the necks is what's considered ridiculous
him: that unique system inside there head
him: to prevent them from getting damaged
him: letrs take eyes for example
him: how would the world look if your eye couldnt respond to changes in light motion, or distance or if you couldnt see color or in such fine detail?
If you've ever used a camera, you know how any error in lighting, focus or motion can ruin a photo. Turning light into even the worst of images requires incredible technology. eyes are pretty useless unless they are complete and perfected.
him: Evolution theory has never adequately explained how organs of extreme design and perfection could "evolve."
me: natural selection?
him: i got a quote from charles darwin
him: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, 1859
me: mutation creates variation
me: unfavorable mutations are selected against
him: now i am sure they can come up with ways a crappy eye could evolve into a better eye
me: reproduction and mutation
me: favorable mutations more likely to survive and reproduce

there's more if you're curious.

you're both retarded

seremtan wrote:you're both retarded

Alright, so we are both tards, what makes me a tard and what makes him a tard?

it wasnt very productive/constructive.

I cant spell u wrote:we're debating about evolution, I'm a athiest and believe in it, he's a christian and disagrees...

him: i've never read the bible

...

unless the "him" and "me" title is wrong...

I cant spell u wrote:

seremtan wrote:you're both retarded

Alright, so we are both tards, what makes me a tard and what makes him a tard?

the shared quality of quintessential tarditude

this guy is just using a series of intuition pumps designed to reinforce the already-held creationist beliefs of the faithful - his arguments about probability depend for their effectiveness on a 6,000 year old earth instead of a 4,570 million year old earth. he reminds me of that idiot with the peanut butter. therefore he's a tard

and you're a tard for not realising he's a tard and wasting time you could be spending cataloguing your star trek collection or wanking over angelina jolie or whatever it is you nerds do

plained wrote:it wasnt very productive/constructive.

neither is this:

MURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

lol

"Believing" in evolution.

There's nothing to "believe". The evidence pile is bigger than Mount Everest. That's like saying you "believe" the sky is blue.

Seriously. I've been reading more on it lately, and even I'm surprised at the mountain of evidence that I wasn't aware of before.

There's always more...

I cant spell u wrote:him: i've never read the bible

A non christian creationist?
I didn't know they made those.

i think the term is a brainwashed dunce

Yeah, I'm going to have to say you're both tards. Neither of you offer any arguments, and on top of that, you sound like you're having separate conversations with E.T. in your head.

Anyway, here's an example of his faulty argument: The sandcastle.
It is a poor analogy. Evolution is not "random." It requires selective factors.
You have to look at it like this: you start by pouring out many buckets of sand and looking for any bits that resemble a castle -- even the smallest little detail. If a pile of sand has some part that looks like a bit of castle, you keep it, and make exact copies of it. The rest of the piles are destroyed.
Now, on the castle-like piles, take the sand that does NOT look like a castle and put it in the bucket -- leave the castle-like parts. Pour the sand back out for each of the multiplied sand piles. Look for new castle-like parts. If you find piles with new parts, do the same as before: multiply them, take the remaining dirt, and start again. Obviously, you're going to get piles that have different castle parts, so you'll eventually end up with a bunch of different looking castles. Diversity.

Fuck, I can't believe I bothered to write that.

btw, his lottery odds analogy is faulty, too. tnf wrote an argument against that thinking a while ago. Do a search.

also, false:
"eyes are pretty useless unless they are complete and perfected."

I think the main problem why evolution still has doubters is because there are still alot of really stupid people on this planet.