Author Topic: The Probability of the Big Bang  (Read 31035 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #464 on: March 28, 2012, 03:40:10 PM »
Where did we come from?

I don't know about you, but my parents had sex and I was born approximately nine months later.

How did the Big Bang begin?

A singularity of infinite mass and density started expanding.

That was answered?  Refer me to the answer or you can tell me in your own words.

Done.

Where and who answered how a hummingbird evolved?  If so, I apologize, but I didn't know we knew the answer to that....again, where is the answer?

Those are the ones that feed on nectar and float in midair, correct? If so, here's the short version:
You had these birds, right? They fed on lots of stuff - berries, seeds and shit like that. One or more adapted to stand still in midair, rather than fly around like a retard. It then discovered that nectar is pretty damned good.
The end.

It's ok if you don't know, but I want you to think about why we don't know.

I did think about why you don't know. Why are you scared of looking at the evidence, rockv12?

WHY is it difficult to see the evidence in their evolution?

Why is it difficult for you to see the evidence in their evolution? Same reason why it's difficult for someone with their eyes closed to see the paintings in my bedroom.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #465 on: March 28, 2012, 03:42:19 PM »
Honestly, I would like to know exactly where in that process the whole thing breaks down for you.  Don't keep looking at the big picture and saying 'oh, it can never happen, it can never explain everything!'.  That is an EMOTIONAL response.  Use your brain for a minute.  What part of that process do you not think is accurate?  Step by step.  Which one?

Natural selection is NOT evolution.  Traits and characteristics are not new information to the dog.  Evolution requires the creation of new information.  Do you really think that natural selection would turn a dog into a whale?  Slowly, it started wading around in the water for fun.  And the dogs with the thicker fur became more likely to survive because they liked to frolic in the sea.  The fur is thick now with all dogs.  The dog decides to move a bit further into the water to avoid the bear on the shore....all the long legged dogs could go further into the water!  Now we have long legged dogs and thick furry dogs!  One day a dog goes under!  He starts swimming underwater to escape the bear!  This guy gets away!  The brave dog that swam underwater...now he has a baby dog that has thick fur, long legs, and isn't afraid to go underwater to escape the bears on shore.  Now keep making little stories like this over and over and over and you will eventually get a whale swimming in the ocean.  Evolution via natural selection.  Got it.  Now do you think this is reasonable?  This scenario played out billions of times over?  Is that what you're saying?

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #466 on: March 28, 2012, 03:43:56 PM »
Natural selection is NOT evolution.  Traits and characteristics are not new information to the dog.  Evolution requires the creation of new information.

How do you think the different colored fur got there? Do you think it's all the exact same DNA that results in entirely different things?
Actually, don't answer that. I think I know what you're going to say.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #467 on: March 28, 2012, 03:45:58 PM »

Those are the ones that feed on nectar and float in midair, correct? If so, here's the short version:
You had these birds, right? They fed on lots of stuff - berries, seeds and shit like that. One or more adapted to stand still in midair, rather than fly around like a retard. It then discovered that nectar is pretty damned good.
The end.


I give up...I seriously give up.  That seems logical to you?  If that's how smart you are, then I'm wasting my time.  Go to church, God loves you, and Jesus died for your sins.  Best of luck to you. ....

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #468 on: March 28, 2012, 03:47:19 PM »
I give up...I seriously give up.  That seems logical to you?

Well, I did dumb it down a lot. You gotta fit your discourse to your audience, n'est-ce pa?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #469 on: March 28, 2012, 03:51:22 PM »
I give up...I seriously give up.  That seems logical to you?

Well, I did dumb it down a lot. You gotta fit your discourse to your audience, n'est-ce pa?

thanks.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #470 on: March 28, 2012, 03:52:23 PM »
thanks.

For calling you an idiot? I think you have some more people to thank...
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #471 on: March 28, 2012, 03:56:18 PM »
Those are the ones that feed on nectar and float in midair, correct? If so, here's the short version:
You had these birds, right? They fed on lots of stuff - berries, seeds and shit like that. One or more adapted to stand still in midair, rather than fly around like a retard. It then discovered that nectar is pretty damned good.
The end.
Well, that would only be true if birds already had some hovering ability.  Then they could evolve it further.  Do any birds other than hummingbirds have hovering ability?  Do they?  Huh? Huh?

I've seen birds like sparrows hover for a second or so, particularly in a fight.  So I say, yes.  And there's also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_flight
Quote
Hovering
The ruby-throated Hummingbird can beat its wings 52 times a second

Hovering is used by several species of birds (and specialized in by one family). True hovering, which is generating lift through flapping alone rather than as a product of the bird's passage through the air, demands a lot of energy. This means that it is confined to smaller birds; the largest bird able to truly hover is the pied kingfisher, although larger birds can hover for short periods of time. Larger birds that hover for prolonged periods do so by flying into a headwind, allowing them to remain stationary relative to the ground (or water). Kestrels, terns and even hawks use this windhovering.

Most birds that hover have high aspect ratio wings that are suited to low speed flying. One major exception to this are the hummingbirds, which are the most accomplished hoverers of all the birds. Hummingbird flight is different from other bird flight in that the wing is extended throughout the whole stroke, the stroke being a symmetrical figure of eight, with the wing producing lift on both the up- and down-stroke. Some hummingbirds can beat their wings 52 times a second, though others do so less frequently.]Hovering
The ruby-throated Hummingbird can beat its wings 52 times a second

Hovering is used by several species of birds (and specialized in by one family). True hovering, which is generating lift through flapping alone rather than as a product of the bird's passage through the air, demands a lot of energy. This means that it is confined to smaller birds; the largest bird able to truly hover is the pied kingfisher, although larger birds can hover for short periods of time. Larger birds that hover for prolonged periods do so by flying into a headwind, allowing them to remain stationary relative to the ground (or water). Kestrels, terns and even hawks use this windhovering.

Most birds that hover have high aspect ratio wings that are suited to low speed flying. One major exception to this are the hummingbirds, which are the most accomplished hoverers of all the birds. Hummingbird flight is different from other bird flight in that the wing is extended throughout the whole stroke, the stroke being a symmetrical figure of eight, with the wing producing lift on both the up- and down-stroke. Some hummingbirds can beat their wings 52 times a second, though others do so less frequently.

I can't see why Rockv12 thinks this is such a gotcha.  I guess he never had a bird feeder.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 03:57:58 PM by Historicity »

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6464
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #472 on: March 28, 2012, 04:06:42 PM »
Honestly, I would like to know exactly where in that process the whole thing breaks down for you.  Don't keep looking at the big picture and saying 'oh, it can never happen, it can never explain everything!'.  That is an EMOTIONAL response.  Use your brain for a minute.  What part of that process do you not think is accurate?  Step by step.  Which one?

Natural selection is NOT evolution.  Traits and characteristics are not new information to the dog.  Evolution requires the creation of new information.  Do you really think that natural selection would turn a dog into a whale?  Slowly, it started wading around in the water for fun.  And the dogs with the thicker fur became more likely to survive because they liked to frolic in the sea.  The fur is thick now with all dogs.  The dog decides to move a bit further into the water to avoid the bear on the shore....all the long legged dogs could go further into the water!  Now we have long legged dogs and thick furry dogs!  One day a dog goes under!  He starts swimming underwater to escape the bear!  This guy gets away!  The brave dog that swam underwater...now he has a baby dog that has thick fur, long legs, and isn't afraid to go underwater to escape the bears on shore.  Now keep making little stories like this over and over and over and you will eventually get a whale swimming in the ocean.  Evolution via natural selection.  Got it.  Now do you think this is reasonable?  This scenario played out billions of times over?  Is that what you're saying?

I never have understood the propensity to make up crap and then claim it can't be true. And then to feel smug about it?  This is why we invented the word "nonsense".
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Online JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2065
  • Darwins +221/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #473 on: March 28, 2012, 04:24:25 PM »
Natural selection is NOT evolution.  Traits and characteristics are not new information to the dog.  Evolution requires the creation of new information.  Do you really think that natural selection would turn a dog into a whale?  Slowly, it started wading around in the water for fun.  And the dogs with the thicker fur became more likely to survive because they liked to frolic in the sea.  The fur is thick now with all dogs.  The dog decides to move a bit further into the water to avoid the bear on the shore....all the long legged dogs could go further into the water!  Now we have long legged dogs and thick furry dogs!  One day a dog goes under!  He starts swimming underwater to escape the bear!  This guy gets away!  The brave dog that swam underwater...now he has a baby dog that has thick fur, long legs, and isn't afraid to go underwater to escape the bears on shore.  Now keep making little stories like this over and over and over and you will eventually get a whale swimming in the ocean.  Evolution via natural selection.  Got it.  Now do you think this is reasonable?  This scenario played out billions of times over?  Is that what you're saying?

New information is integral to the process of evolution and I could easily explain to you how it happens.  The question I have for you, however, is could you put your emotions aside for just a few minutes and listen long enough to understand it?  Could you really sit there and take the time to read what I write to you and accept that maybe, yes, new information CAN be had that way?  I am not going to take the time to do it if you are unwilling to hear it out. 

In order to take the first step, however, I must ask you if you know what DNA is and how it works?  And if you really want to hear this, just answer this section of my response with a single yes, or a single no. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #474 on: March 28, 2012, 05:16:27 PM »
New informatiom comes from erroneously duplicated bits of DNA that can be altered stepwise to a meaningful gene. At first that bit has no use. No harm either. Some info comes from viruses.

The stuff you don't know, Rock. It would fill books.

Offline shnozzola

Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #475 on: March 28, 2012, 06:05:56 PM »
Just because one living thing has a short "thing" and another living thing has a "long" thing, doesn't mean that the long one MUST have evolved from the short one. 

Hi Rockv12,
    Can I borrow your statement above?  Oh, and when your finished, can we talk to version 13?
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #476 on: March 28, 2012, 06:49:09 PM »
Where did we come from?  How did the Big Bang begin?  That was answered?  Refer me to the answer or you can tell me in your own words.  Where and who answered how a hummingbird evolved?  If so, I apologize, but I didn't know we knew the answer to that....again, where is the answer?  It's ok if you don't know, but I want you to think about why we don't know.  WHY is it difficult to see the evidence in their evolution?  Howcome we can't get a good answer to some of these questions?  Look, I know you don't know how the hummingbird evolved....right?  Look online...nobody knows.  But WHY?  I think it's because the hummingbird is so freakin' advanced in structure and design, that NOBODY can fathom how evolution created such a creature.  Along with millions of other examples.  Evolution likes to look at monkeys and humans....  So can you tell me a rational idea for how the hummingbird evolved or how matter just poofed into existence to blow up?
Quit making arguments out of incredulity.  They make you look and sound like an ignorant fool who is desperate to find any excuse to justify his belief system, and they thoroughly explode your claim that your beliefs are based on rational reasons and not blind faith.  Because if you had rational, evidence-based reasons, you would not have to ask all these nonsensical questions based off of incredulous ignorance.

After all your posts in this thread, you're still at square one.  You haven't disproved evolution in any way, shape, or form; you've demonstrated numerous times that you don't understand evolution at all, yet you presume that you're competent to judge it; you've shown that your own beliefs are based off of purely emotional reasons built from blind faith, despite your claims to the contrary; and your parting shot is "go to church, God loves you, and Jesus died for your sins".  Yes, this will work extremely well with a bunch of atheists who consider church to be a social activity at best, don't believe there are such things as gods, and consider Jesus to be a fictional character.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #477 on: March 28, 2012, 07:53:15 PM »
I wasn't asking anybody to contact Geezer Butler.  Just making a point that even non-Christians will tell you that there is a devil.

Oh, well, there you have it.  If some washed up, pretend satanist agrees with you that there is a devil, by jesus, there must be a devil.

I have a hard time understanding why you would think the testimony of any musician regarding the existence of supernatural beings would be convincing.  Did you eat paint as a child?

Nobody has educated me on anything...

That is not their fault.  Sometimes the student is unteachable.  I do not see you being receptive or interested in learning.  Instead I see you working very hard to maintain your stupid beliefs.

everytime I ask a difficult question,

You haven't.  You have asked dumb questions predicated on your misunderstandings and lies told to you by other religious people. 

ZERO education was received

Again, I really see that as a problem with the student, not the teachers.

Now if you want to accuse me of not putting effort into my posts, I suggest you do some effort and answer some of the "tougher" questions. 

Because you have not learned anything from the basics.  Instead you ask pointless, loaded questions.  Why would I waste my time and effort?  Pearls before swine, as they say.

Where did we come from?  How did we get here? 

We came from primitive apes via evolution.

You can't start in the middle of the story with evolution.  You have to answer the foundational question of "where did we come from?".

Says you.  Unfortunately your say so means little. Mainly because your grasp of the facts is so poor.

These are questions that should be answered if you want to prove that there is NO God, nor evidence for a God.

Now you are shifting the goal posts.  The point was to explain evolution, not disprove god.  Evolution does not prove there is no god.  It just makes god unnecessary as an explanation for our existence.  Believing evolution is true does not mean you have to stop believing in god.  You can do both.  You just have to accept that genesis is not literally true in everything it says. There are lots of xians who believe in evolution and god.


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #478 on: March 28, 2012, 09:30:00 PM »

Says you.  Unfortunately your say so means little. Mainly because your grasp of the facts is so poor.


You can't start in the middle.  To prove something as "proven", as you say evolution is, means that ALL elements must be proven.  We have just one little, itty bitty problem (well many IMHO)....that problem is that we have no answer and science can't explain how we got here.  Where did everything come from?   I can't teach world history by starting with the Middle Ages.


Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #479 on: March 28, 2012, 09:32:49 PM »
After all your posts in this thread, you're still at square one.  You haven't disproved evolution in any way, shape, or form; you've demonstrated numerous times that you don't understand evolution at all,

And yet, nobody can explain how the hummingbird evolved, among many other examples.  Round and round we go.  Why is it so hard to prove evolution?  Explain just one example of evolution....just one!  How did the inner ear/cochlea evolve?  Please explain, step by step...geez.  Help me out here....

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #480 on: March 28, 2012, 09:35:56 PM »
Wrong once again. It is absolutely the best way to work backwards.

You are assigning causes and purposes to inanimate humks of matter. Ot has no mission, no purpose.

It's natural to ask these questions in a people centered world.

I have the hummingbirds evolution in a book on bird evolution. You can buy it. I'm not typing it on an iPhone. The wrist is the key.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 09:39:20 PM by Tero »

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2203
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #481 on: March 28, 2012, 09:40:58 PM »
The blind remain unwilling to see.

May I call him a fuckhead now? (No offense, rock. Inside joke.)
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #482 on: March 28, 2012, 09:42:35 PM »
I can't see why Rockv12 thinks this is such a gotcha.  I guess he never had a bird feeder.

And because some birds appear to stay in one place for a moment proves how hummingbirds evolved?  So the birds that "hover" aren't cutting it?  They aren't surviving?  What's the point?  Why did evolution make them flap faster? 

Gosh, just the idea of wings evolving is absurd...we've discussed that.  Now I'm trying to get the point across that supersonic wings evolving is also absurd?  Does anybody have any reason in here?  Think about the steps and rationale involved in this notion!!  Think about why and when and how all this took place!!  Anybody?  Anybody think it's absurd?  Sorry, I'm getting a bit annoyed, but I've gotten NO reasonable theory or idea other than the above example?  Think about the moment, the time, that the bird that hovered a bit longer because of stronger wings evolved stronger wings and then stronger wings to hover a bit better.... Think about that!  It's absurd that it would evolve to the point of the extraordinary hummingbird!  And these examples are EVERYWHERE!!  Shall we look at the gecko?  Shall we look at the spider?  The ant?  The sloth?  The hibernating bear?  The honeybee?  The woodpecker?  The jellyfish?  Pick one and explain the evolution to me...go right ahead...

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #483 on: March 28, 2012, 09:43:30 PM »
The blind remain unwilling to see.

May I call him a fuckhead now? (No offense, rock. Inside joke.)

I can take it.  We're online.  I know you wouldn't say that to my face....right?  lol.  I'm not the most pleasant debater either, but I don't call anyone names...come on!  lol.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2203
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #484 on: March 28, 2012, 09:50:11 PM »
Nah, I wouldn't call you a fuckhead just yet ;-)

Willfully ignorant, yes. Intellectually dishonest, for sure.

But fuckhead? No way.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #485 on: March 28, 2012, 09:53:14 PM »
Not that Rock will ever learn a thing, but for the rest of us. There is no fossil record of New  World humming birds. They are evolved from swifts.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1642/0004-8038(2003)120%5B0145:POETSA%5D2.0.CO%3B2?prevSearch=

The ancestors are well known.
Quote
The Early Eocene Primapus, found in England, is similar to both a primitive swift and the aegialornithids, which are in some aspects intermediate between swifts and owlet-nightjars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apodiformes

Old world relatives
http://www.senckenberg.de/files/content/forschung/abteilung/terrzool/ornithologie/hummingbird_biologist.pdf

The swift connection is a vocal feature, a picture on this page
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n8/full/ncomms1448.html?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-201108
See Rock, you finally could learn something.

Cool stuff. But the bones will be hard to find.
Quote
Hummingbird bones are very small and so
preserved only under especially fortunate
circumstances. Have the tiny bones of these
birds been overlooked in Upper Oligocene
or early Miocene localities, or did they
indeed only occur in the Lower Oligocene?
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 09:57:46 PM by Tero »

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #486 on: March 28, 2012, 09:54:49 PM »
Nah, I wouldn't call you a fuckhead just yet ;-)

Willfully ignorant, yes. Intellectually dishonest, for sure.

But fuckhead? No way.

The problem is that I think we are all a bit too smart for our own good.  Listen to us...we're arguing about birds and wings.  Let's talk politics...I bet that would be way better!!  lol.  Now Obama....don't get me started!  Just kidding. 

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #487 on: March 28, 2012, 09:58:38 PM »
Tero, I never said that nobody has any articles or "research" on the topic.  But I found no answer in any of those links.  Can you point out the answer?

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #488 on: March 28, 2012, 10:39:53 PM »
Now I'm trying to get the point across that supersonic wings evolving is also absurd?  Does anybody have any reason in here?
Certainly you don't.  You're a combination of idiot and liar.

Hummingbirds don't have supersonic wings.

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2743
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #489 on: March 29, 2012, 12:30:46 AM »
I'm going to try a different approach here.

rockv12, do you believe in "mircoevolution", as many creationists do?

If so, why?

If not, then why not, and why do you feel you're correct, despite what other creationists say?

Finally, either way, what does "mircoevolution" means to you?
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #490 on: March 29, 2012, 12:43:25 AM »
OK rock, so your position in this debate, after nearly 500 posts and dozens if not hundreds of examples of the legitimacy of evolution, remains the exact same argument from ignorance/incredulity you proferred up on day one: I cannot understand this, therefore god. At this point it is obvious that you are utterly unwilling to accept anything as evidence against your original postulate. I am actually quite surprised that so many here have humored you for so long on the matter.

You have also repeatedly accused others of dodging your "difficult" questions, so in a turning of tables I wish to readdress a difficult question you conveniently chose to ignore regarding what I consider to be your most absurd post of this thread (italics mine):
 
If science can help explain how a little girl of 95 lbs. threw a football player up against the wall with one arm and was "cured" through prayer and Jesus' name, after her parents sold her soul to Satan when she was a child, then go right ahead and prove it.  Good luck...

Why does god allow parents to sell their children's souls? Answer the question.
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #491 on: March 29, 2012, 04:31:52 AM »
Natural selection is NOT evolution.  Traits and characteristics are not new information to the dog.  Evolution requires the creation of new information.  Do you really think that natural selection would turn a dog into a whale? ......

Right.  So perhaps now you will answer my question rather than dodging around it.

Was a Great Dane ALWAYS a Great Dane, and was a Chihuahua ALWAYS a Chihuahua?
Or did they both come from an ancestor that was somewhat dog-like?

I'm guessing that you will answer "no", and "yes" respectively, since we can quite easily prove how dog breeds have evolved.

So you will therefore agree that - over time, and with the right pressures - creatures can change quite dramatically, increasing or decreasing in size, fur length, cranial shape, and so on.  How some selection for particular traits can lead to genetic problems that other breeds don't have (e.g deafness in dalmations).  We've gone a long way towards Great Danes.....but suppose we keep ON breeding for height and size?  Eventually we'll get something about the same size and build as a pony.....

I asked you before what you meant by "dog" - something else you chose not to answer.  What is a "dog"?  What is a "pony"?  What is the difference?

Those AREN'T simple or obvious questions, those last three.


<<edit - got my respective answers the wrong way round!!>>
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 07:28:58 AM by Anfauglir »
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #492 on: March 29, 2012, 06:05:30 AM »
Tero, I never said that nobody has any articles or "research" on the topic.  But I found no answer in any of those links.  Can you point out the answer?
Things evolve. It is proven by DNA studies and field studies of animals in isolated areas where speciation occurs. Amphibians, fish in Lake Victoria. Read a book.

Lab scale evolution discussion
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20586.msg455386.html#msg455386
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 06:43:18 AM by Tero »