{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/10/2015 3:51:18 PM
2
[quote]I understand evolution very well.. I just don't believe in it..
Micro evolution definitely happens, survival of fittest yadda yadda, legit.
But macro evolution takes quite a bit of faith, faith placed in randomness hiding behind nothing but time, to make the scientists feel good.[/quote]
Micro and macro evolution are the same thing. If you accept one and reject the other, you don't understand evolution. The only qualifier is time. It's like saying this paint stroke and that paint stroke aren't the same because the latter's length is longer... The same process occurs. And evolution is not random. Another misconception that so many ppl have. That's why I believe you don't understand it.
[quote]I understand what your saying about distinguishing between natural and designed, but your flaw is in assuming we came from a puddle and therefore we are natural. Besides, if we did come from nothing then aren't we all natural? We are just the universe looking back on itself in your mind so anything we create is natural? [/quote]
I don't assume we came from a puddle. I never said we came from nothing and I'm not understanding you. We are not the universe looking back on itself, in my mind and anything we create would not be considered natural Lol. Did you mean to reply to someone else? Where did you pull these assertions from? What did I say to make you think, that I think that stuff?
[quote]All I'm asking you to do is compare what we design to what is "natural" in your mind and find Design in the "natural" [/quote]
You can't find design in nature. (That's like saying, look at the design of this house after a hurricane passed through it) Otherwise there would be no nature. It would just be design. You can however apply what you find in nature to designs.
I think this is just semantics. I think you have a different definition for evolution, nature and design.
In my mind natural is things that occur in nature without intent. Design are the things we make out of nature. Nature is a natural occurrence. A process unto itself. Design is not a natural occurrence. It is not a process unto itself.
[quote]Maybe where we are unclear is I believe God created all things. And his design is prevalent everywhere.. In a blade of grass using photosynthesis, in a single cell of my body more complex then a city, in the balance of the universe and our solar system.. I see design, you see [b]nature[/b][/quote]
Fixed.
English
-
Also saying a house getting destroyed by a hurricane is saying the difference between design and nature. The weather system was designed... My belief... It's just design dismantling design
-
I see. So you don't believe in nature? Also my point was that the aftermath of the house wouldn't be considered design. Not the hurricane going and destroying the house. Although I would consider that to be an unfortunate natural disaster Lol, not design.
-
If you believe in evolution then you see all life as a random circumstance starting with space, Proteins and ending with humans.. Hence why evolutionists see Humans as the universe looking back on its self. I stated this because that is the thought of evolutionists, we are the universe studying itself because we grew from the universe... Sorry if I put thoughts in your head.. But most evolutionists hold to this
-
Edited by IamPluto: 3/10/2015 4:07:17 PMEven if they happened to hold that, that is not evolution. Evolution is the change in gene frequency over time. It is a fact, because it can be observed. It is also a scientific theory. Evolution by natural selection. Because it explains why the gene frequency changes overtime. Edit - Also it is not random. Don't know why you think it is. It is guided by natural selection, something that is not random. If it was organisms would not be qualified for their environment lol
-
I understand your point but I'm talking about how evolution started.. There was a puddle and proteins eventually formed and the first multicelled organism eventually formed.. This is widely excepted by evolutionists as a result of probability and chance over time... They can't explain how the initial pool got their though yet
-
Oh I see what you mean. Although I wouldn't call that evolution. You will confuse people. What you are talking about is Abiogenesis. No where the amount of evidence for it like gravity or evolution. I'm not saying I accept it. Need more evidence. Although I would say I lean towards it, because we know for a fact that the building blocks of life can occur naturally. Not a leap to think that life can occur naturally of the building blocks of life can occur naturally
-
I'd like to see proof that the building blocks of life can occur randomly.. Do you have any sources I could read?
-
It's not random. Throw out that idea lol Look up Miller Urey experiment. Although the conditions they used may have been wrong, they still produced amino acids naturally. Therefore if the building blocks can occur naturally, it isn't absurd to believe that it is possible that life could occur naturally.
-
And if that cell somehow formed.. It would die almost instantly then...due to lake of enzymes and more proteins
-
Some information I found, Harold Morowitz is a biophysicist and came to this conclusion in his research: Consider a cell containing just 124 proteins. Professor Morowitz has calculated that the chance of all these forming without information input is 1 in 10^100,000,000. One of the smallest known genomes is that of Mycoplasma genitalium which manufactures about 600 proteins, so what are the chances of that happening without intelligent input? Humans have about 100,000 proteins. That is just the chance of the proteins forming, not them aligning perfectly.. Which would need to be accomplished by Proteins! Haha the chances gets astronomical at that point for the proteins to align in the perfect order.
-
His experiment was a closed system and he had no oxygen or nitrogen with he gaseous mixture because he said it would decay any organic material through oxidation.. And paleontological and geological records show we had an oxygen rich atmosphere from the earliest of times. His experiment also used an energy source of electricity he claimed to be equivalent to lightning but this has been found to be grossly Miss calculated.. And his research ended up basically stating: Raw material+energy=life molecules But what this is missing is an information source. For example, in photosynthesis a highly complex system involving chlorophyll captures energy from the sun and uses it to build molecules from raw materials. But an energy source beating down on raw energy with no information leads to nothing but caos. Such as a house left out in the woods.. Paint will fade etc. Without an information source then he is indeed saying this is all random. Do you not agree this logic of life creation is based off randomness still?
-
The interactions are not random. It's the same idea with evolution, when ppl say it's random.
-
The interactions among the hypothetical amino acids you mean?
-
The interaction among the chemistry is not random.
-
How can you say that? If we had enough amino acids appear all of a sudden.. How is it not random how they will bump into each other/whether they form/if it's in the right order/ you would always get a different outcome without guidance or a information source... Isn't that random?
-
Have you ever seen a rocket ship launch? It takes off because of the interaction between chemicals used as a propellent. That interaction is not random. It is just how those chemicals react to each other and they will continue to produce the same outcome. That is what I mean when I say it is not random and Tbh Idk how to explain it in any other way. The Miller Urey experiment shows that under certain conditions, chemicals will react in a non random fashion and produce amino acids. Again it's not random. But back to the other conversation. Do you not believe in nature?
-
I believe in nature.. I don't think the way chemicals react with each other is random.. There may be versatility to it but it's generally the same outcome.. What I'm saying is random is the pool conditions needed to support an amino acid, the building blocks for amino acids being available, the amino acids aligning in a formation that is beneficial to their growth. All the study did was produce a few amino acids, not ones needed for life, a couple actually detrimental to it and not enough of them even come close to a protein. The manor in which these amino acids would encounter each other is anyone's guess, they may never even reach each other in the pool
-
Edited by IamPluto: 3/17/2015 8:34:44 PMYou're missing the point for the MU experiment man. Amino acids can occur naturally. That is the main point. How the conditions came to be. Whether it was random or not is beside the point. And no one knows if the conditions were random. Abiogenesis, the study of the origin of life, is still in its beginning stages. How could you believe everything is designed and at the same time believe in nature. Isn't that contradictory?.
-
I see what you mean, and it is pretty impressive they even created a single amino acid.. I believe God created all but doesn't control it. Nature is the ebb and flow of his creation governed by laws that we as Humans slowly come to understand
