How tis planet earth started actually? and how life form
-
the common misconception about evolution is that it is so unlikely to be able to form such complex structure. This is a very common argument that manages to trick or mislead people to believe that evolution is impossibleOriginally posted by slowmover:some scientist on the view that life is formed by chance
W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man.
(W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited)
The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
("Hoyle on Evolution," Nature magazine)
does a tornado or a any type of disaster decorate a town and make it more nicer even if it happens 10 by the power of 50(mathematic impossible to mathematician)times even make sense to you?
do note that evolution is solely base on CHANCE on the gene having a beneficial mutation before natural selection steps in.
First, it is simple structure, then as it evolve, it becomes a little more complex. Over time, i become more and more complex.
there is nothing amazing about complex structure. It is a cause and effect thingy. Causality is a fundamental process of universe.
2 becomes 4. 4 becomes 8. 8 becomes 16. Soon a large number will be form by permutation or the effect of power. -
The concept of nothing and something is for laymen terms.Originally posted by Guilmon1987:First there was nothing. Nothing felt very sian, coz there was nothing, and nothing itself didn't exist because, well there was nothing.
So feeling sian that nothing was nothing and there is nothing, nothing started to feel frustrated, and thus feelings were borned. Nothing den gained intelligence and created something. Something den slowly evovle to what we have now.
In physics, the study of matter and anti matter and the concept of nothing is studied in great detail beyond the simple understanding of normal population.
Normal people has very vague concepts of something and nothing. -
Originally posted by kivine:
Yes correct but unfortunately even the other methods can't confirm accuracy at that timeline. Even if not the content to be evaluated compared to carbon could pose some difficulty. Some of these radioactive material are not readily available unlike carbon. But even carbon's availability deferrs from time to time. Ok so for this part of dating artifacts are considered flawed as you had acknowledge and had mentioned.
banzie, I'm not sure what point are you trying to make.I'm feeling quite disappointed in several ways, I've reply to your comments point by point since page 3+. I've admitted to some of the flaws in all the stuff brought forward, yet you have chose to think that I'm not; saying what nobel. Why are you so eager in bringing out the flaws, I've stated in my post earlier that I have accepted the tree-ring calibration is flawed and on-going.I'm not even suggesting even the first place, the other dating methods are out there as you state.
And those comments I quote can be find in the wikipedia, an open-encyclopedia with reference attached.granted wikipedia is a public encylopedia, it is better than the so [b]called archeology site you claimed to be standing on an equal footing.
Atheist and evolutionist have a hard time because they are guilty(wrong) until proved innocent(right) in a way, while religious have the morale high ground, that is they are innocent(right) until proven guilty(wrong).
And also note that the yahoo-site you provide too stated that other dating methods can be use in conjunction with carbon dating, such as Stratigraphic dating.
I should have listened to fatslob in the first place.I gonna quit this topic. I surrender.
[/b]
There is not right and wrong at this point I guess... its just a different perception till proven. So finally I can say this for the LAST time... Everyone please do keep an open mind to evolution or what ever theories. Recognising the theory thoroughly and its weakness is good. Textbook are not neccessary complete and even planets status are changed too what else cannot? One thing for sure even if newton's law is improved, apple still fall down from the tree.
-
Originally posted by january:
trick or mislead?like this one?
[b]the common misconception about evolution is that it is so unlikely to be able to form such complex structure. This is a very common argument that manages to trick or mislead people to believe that evolution is impossible
First, it is simple structure, then as it evolve, it becomes a little more complex. Over time, i become more and more complex.
there is nothing amazing about complex structure. It is a cause and effect thingy. Causality is a fundamental process of universe.
2 becomes 4. 4 becomes 8. 8 becomes 16. Soon a large number will be form by permutation or the effect of power.[/b]
After Darwin advanced the claim with his book The Descent of Man that man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek fossils to support this contention. However, some evolutionists believed that "half-man half-ape" creatures were to be found not only in the fossil record, but also alive in various parts of the world. In the early 20th century, these pursuits for "living transitional links" led to unfortunate incidents, one of the cruellest of which is the story of a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga.
Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an evolutionist researcher in the Congo. In his own tongue, his name meant "friend". He had a wife and two children. Chained and caged like an animal, he was taken to the USA where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St Louis World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him as "the closest transitional link to man". Two years later, they took him to the Bronx Zoo in New York and there they exhibited him under the denomination of "ancient ancestors of man" along with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, and an orang-utan called Dohung. Dr William T. Hornaday, the zoo's evolutionist director gave long speeches on how proud he was to have this exceptional "transitional form" in his zoo and treated caged Ota Benga as if he were an ordinary animal. Unable to bear the treatment he was subjected to, Ota Benga eventually committed suicide.( Ota Benga: The Pygmy in The Zoo, New York: Delta Books)
people keep on saying that from simple slowly to complex but how simple is simple.Can u please tell me one i just need one example where we can see human generate a most simple and not complex living bacteria -
If even top end scientist can't generate one single bacteria with the most sophisticated equipment. I doubt anyone in this forum could answer. I doubt evolutionist could answer.
-
Ernst Haeckel(more hardcore than Darwin)a faker who falsified his drawings in order to support the theory he advanced. Haeckel's forgeries purported to show that fish and human embryos resembled one another. When he was caught out, the only defence he offered was that other evolutionists had committed similar offences:
"After this compromising confession of "forgery" I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoners' dock hundreds of fellow culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of "forgery", for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A well-known geneticist and outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontin from Harvard University, confesses that he is "a materialist first and a scientist second" in these words:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is very interesting to see that the "evolutionist scientist" Professor Ali Demirsoy accepts this sort of irrational proposition:
In essence, the probability of the formation of a cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realised once in the whole universe. Otherwise some metaphysical powers beyond our definition must have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate for the scientific goal. We thus have to look into the first hypothesis. -
Proving is not really applicable in reality.Originally posted by banzie:Yes correct but unfortunately even the other methods can't confirm accuracy at that timeline. Even if not the content to be evaluated compared to carbon could pose some difficulty. Some of these radioactive material are not readily available unlike carbon. But even carbon's availability deferrs from time to time. Ok so for this part of dating artifacts are considered flawed as you had acknowledge and had mentioned.
There is not right and wrong at this point I guess... its just a different perception till proven. So finally I can say this for the LAST time... Everyone please do keep an open mind to evolution or what ever theories. Recognising the theory thoroughly and its weakness is good. Textbook are not neccessary complete and even planets status are changed too what else cannot? One thing for sure even if newton's law is improved, apple still fall down from the tree.
In reality, we use probability model and confidence level. We just accept that superman don't in life based on the fact that we do not see him before.
However, we cannot prove that superman don't exist. I talking about the detailed meanings of things which most people dun really like to hear. -
simple cell or virus does not mean that it is easy for human to replicate.Originally posted by slowmover:people keep on saying that from simple slowly to complex but how simple is simple.Can u please tell me one i just need one example where we can see human generate a most simple and not complex living bacteria
i say again, evolution theory is the most consistent direction so far.
keeping an open mind but do you have other possible theories that is different direction than evolution.
until you have, there is no way but just to continue the evolution line of research.
u tell me. god created the first life and so and so on. then in this line, just accept the story and no need to do research liao issit. so conveninet?? -
that is why many materialist scientist will continue to pursue on the direction of evolution even when there is unbridgeable gap as they can't accept a higher being which is why it is and still is a consistent theoryOriginally posted by january:simple cell or virus does not mean that it is easy for human to replicate.
i say again, evolution theory is the most consistent direction so far.
keeping an open mind but do you have other possible theories that is different direction than evolution.
until you have, there is no way but just to continue the evolution line of research.
u tell me. god created the first life and so and so on. then in this line, just accept the story and no need to do research liao issit. so conveninet??
actually the more i read and contemplate on the complex system of the world it bring me closer to what i believe in so research is good but with a open mind and not to lied to oneself
i still have a open mind if one day human is able to generate life and have concrete proof that this world is in a steady-state i will hold on to what i believe in(believe because if i can see God now it wouldn't be called faith already)
how we are different from animals is that we have the logic to know what is right and wrong we feel guilty if we do something bad.if evolution is true then there will be no more absolute right or absolute wrong because due to the system of natural selection only the fittest will survive by any means(genocide included)and give birth to descendants which inherit the strong genes which is the law of nature as purported by darwin's theory -
Then what's the point of science? You are not making sense... We do we used to derive knowledge from?Originally posted by january:Proving is not really applicable in reality.
In reality, we use probability model and confidence level. We just accept that superman don't in life based on the fact that we do not see him before.
However, we cannot prove that superman don't exist. I talking about the detailed meanings of things which most people dun really like to hear. -
banzie maybe u can tone down a little bit this is just a friendly discussion.forumer here mostly is not here to make enemies alright
sorry not lecturing u -
science allows us to have application and walah. our modern civilisation has alot to do with science, engineering and art.Originally posted by banzie:Then what's the point of science? You are not making sense... We do we used to derive knowledge from?
religion is also part of modern civilisation. in fact, it is becoming a commerical product liao. It sure has a lot of branding going on.
from what i can see, religion is still getting many supportings and there are more and more religion and different kind of idol figure worship.
Seriously, they do not help much.. all these worshipping and stuff. I am going to race ahead if u all want to use this lazy method of hoping for peace.
real peace is to acknowledge reality and knowing that i can die at any moment because reality has no safety for individual. If the conditions are right, i will die now.
happiness is not praying for safety but living life fully and knowing that my life can end now or tonight. It is really just doing what u can in terms of working hard and brushing up own knowledge. -
You are not explaining your previous post.Originally posted by january:science allows us to have application and walah. our modern civilisation has alot to do with science, engineering and art.
religion is also part of modern civilisation. in fact, it is becoming a commerical product liao. It sure has a lot of branding going on.
from what i can see, religion is still getting many supportings and there are more and more religion and different kind of idol figure worship.
Seriously, they do not help much.. all these worshipping and stuff. I am going to race ahead if u all want to use this lazy method of hoping for peace.
real peace is to acknowledge reality and knowing that i can die at any moment because reality has no safety for individual. If the conditions are right, i will die now.
happiness is not praying for safety but living life fully and knowing that my life can end now or tonight. It is really just doing what u can in terms of working hard and brushing up own knowledge. -
evolution theory does not bring peace some of the pass and present leaders have brought death to millions of innocent people base on materialist thinking
communist for example every day in north korea hundreds of children starve to death base on the communist idea.we have no idea what is the pain these children are suffering as i don't think anyone in this forum have gone without food for 36hrs
Relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these "isms". Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin's The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at its 'dialectical materialist' attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin's theory as "containing the basis in natural history for communism". In his book The Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man". (Alan Woods and Ted Grant, Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science) -
Theory of evolution is not flawless, but it is the most consistent theory so far and the best accepted present explanation by not just atheist but also scientists as well.
Religions are all about faith. It is pretty absurd for a zealot in his/her religion to convince anyone of a scientific mind that everything is due to God and we shall left all the thinking to be done by HIM and VICE VERSA. So it is pointless to argue wif ppl whose mind is already so deeply embedded into what he already believe as "ultimate truth" -
No one is debating the about religion vs evolution here... but the reliability of evolution. Flawless yes, consistent Not neccessary. I could rather use the word convincing than consistent. Like what we had alredy goes through so many times. there shows some inconsistency of the theory some evidence in the world.Originally posted by Hamiltonian1125:Theory of evolution is not flawless, but it is the most consistent theory so far and the best accepted present explanation by not just atheist but also scientists as well.
Religions are all about faith. It is pretty absurd for a zealot in his/her religion to convince anyone of a scientific mind that everything is due to God and we shall left all the thinking to be done by HIM and VICE VERSA. So it is pointless to argue wif ppl whose mind is already so deeply embedded into what he already believe as "ultimate truth"
Although many inconsistency were explained by adding more theory into the orginial theory by darwin. Still there remains some missing links and questionable evidence.
Sure you can believe in evolution no problem just like anyone could believe in aliens creating human. I think IMO it is the greatest lie to tell everyone evolution in the whole without informing them the weakness overr the correct way of looking at this theory. It is a theory that is well explained as compared to others if we don't talk about religion but in the scientific community rather than what was protrayed by the educational and evolution organisation as the ultimate truth hidding the flaws.
If you ask most people in the world, lack of knowledge they would think the theory has no flaws and expected it the way as the evolutionist would have wanted them to believe. But it is only those who study deep into the subject that understand the theory is still flawed.
In Conclusion as to all have agreed, Evolution may be the most convincing theory but it is not flawless and hence have alot of questions to be dealt with. Many holds different view, but to me IN MY OWN OPINION. The theory barely makes up 50% to be believable probably due to the inaccuracy of the the evidence and the many still questionable evidence that prove other wise. -
Originally posted by banzie:
wooo cool it...did I say theory of evolution is flawless??? No I dont...All I said was it is the best solution so far...Ad hoc yes....but it is no doubt the most acceptable theory in present context.
No one is debating the about religion vs evolution here... but the reliability of evolution. Flawless yes, consistent Not neccessary. I could rather use the word convincing than consistent. Like what we had alredy goes through so many times. there shows some inconsistency of the theory some evidence in the world.
Although many inconsistency were explained by adding more theory into the orginial theory by darwin. Still there remains some missing links and questionable evidence.
Sure you can believe in evolution no problem just like anyone could believe in aliens creating human. I think IMO it is the greatest lie to tell everyone evolution in the whole without informing them the weakness overr the correct way of looking at this theory. It is a theory that is well explained as compared to others if we don't talk about religion but in the scientific community rather than what was protrayed by the educational and evolution organisation as the ultimate truth hidding the flaws.
If you ask most people in the world, lack of knowledge they would think the theory has no flaws and expected it the way as the evolutionist would have wanted them to believe. But it is only those who study deep into the subject that understand the theory is still flawed.
In Conclusion as to all have agreed, Evolution may be the most convincing theory but it is not flawless and hence have alot of questions to be dealt with. Many holds different view, but to me IN MY OWN OPINION. The theory barely makes up 50% to be believable probably due to the inaccuracy of the the evidence and the many still questionable evidence that prove other wise.
Ur opinion is not much of a use.....unless u can convince the whole scientific community by writing in ur thesis to debate the fatal errors in the theory and give it a confidence level in statistic on how wrong it is.
Dun shoot me like that, I am not even targeting anyone and I merely states those who are too deeply influence by religions can never see the point some scientists are trying to make and VICE VERSA -
on the contrary, i like science, progress, and the like.. i watch discovery channel too..Originally posted by january:i have seen the discovery channels on human evolution.
the straight line evolution of chimpanzee to human is wrong liao.
there are different species of bipedal apes which live together and sometimes fight.
homo sapien is the one that survive among the different species. got one bloody big volcano reduces human species to few thousands to near extinction. Then after surviving, they start reproducing to today time loh.....
Anyway, i feel u sound too nihilist. like it does not matter and it not important to progress science like that.
i'm interested in space, exploration, etc.
BUT! I feel we should concentrate efforts on what's at hand before going out to solve all these big problems..
like the yawning thing.. it's a THEORY that we yawn because we need oxygen.. but it's also proven that this is not entirely true.. it doesn't make any difference and in fact, we breathe faster when we need air, as opposed to taking long deep yawn..
and up until today, this mystery is not permanently solved.
we haven't been to the deepest parts of the oceans, we don't fully understand the the present life on earth (especially the deep oceanic lifeforms)
and yet we keep trying to figure out how everything started.. -
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/spitzer_planets_041018.html
Above - another theory on how Earth and other planets formed.
Quote from the above line: "Rocky planets like Earth are thought to form when dust motes around a nascent star gather to form rocks. Rocks collide, and some stick and grow." -
Another interesting link:
http://www.space.com/spacelibrary/books/library_planetearth_030512.html -
Study: Earth Formed Earlier than Thought
By the Associated Press
RE: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_age_030606.html -
GOOGLE!! All your questions "answered":
http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&q=earth+formation&meta= -
wow. this topic died fast.
-
I suppose you can believe the moronic Christian theory of how life started...An ageing shaman nods his head and poof! the universe appears.
-
huh? i tot the their story is that God created the world in 7 days with sunday as a rest day that thing..Originally posted by yellowtofuwarrior:I suppose you can believe the moronic Christian theory of how life started...An ageing shaman nods his head and poof! the universe appears.