How tis planet earth started actually? and how life form
-
They are believers because they wan something to hold on to...unless of course if they are born into a religious family which is often the case. Then it makes things worst because they do not even know wat they got into the first place. They went into religion because their parents went into it and were brought up on it..Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Even within the Church, there are Christians that accept Evolution and those that do not... hahahaha there are people that are so blind and they are so in need of a savior to rescue them... I fear to think what would happen to them if they are not believers... -
Then you shouldn't stick with anything. Based on that kind of assumption there is really nothing for you in the real world... and stop holding on to the belief that Newton's Laws are perfect either. Better yet, don't ask, you will get nightmares when u find out just how 'imperfect' our understanding is.Originally posted by banzie:Theory is always still a theory. Simple as that.. unless proven. I don't stick with evolution becoz it is not proven. I just viewed it as one of the explaination people offered. The fact is that most people don't take evolution as a theory. They took it as a truth because they do not know that the theory itself existed a number of flaws. I want everyone here that reads this from been misleaded by the athetist and look at things in a open mind to many other possibilities. -
There are a number of athetist who had blind faith too... Blind faith on their theory I guess and imposing others their beliefs. (isn't this what they are complaining about Christians?) Check out their forum. So whoever is reading this should be clear that evolution is NOT the truth yet. It has its flaws don't take it 100% keep a open mindedness for other possibilities.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Even within the Church, there are Christians that accept Evolution and those that do not... hahahaha there are people that are so blind and they are so in need of a savior to rescue them... I fear to think what would happen to them if they are not believers...
Lastly I haven't even talk about religion or proving my open about creationism and already alot of people is attacking the subject. are these people here to pinpoint on certain religion with their perjudiced judgement? Or debating on the subject? I'll leave it to everyone else to see. -
Why isn't newton law is wrong? You mean gravity is fake? Then try jumping down uob building maybe you'll fly. What I see in front of me is The law applies and it works no matter how imperfect our understanding may be. It is tested with results and it works. It is perfectly alright. Even if someone comes with a better explaination of newton's law, the fact that the part of the tested law will remain unchange becoz these truth doesn't change ever. Gravity will be there.Originally posted by fatslob:Then you shouldn't stick with anything. Based on that kind of assumption there is really nothing for you in the real world... and stop holding on to the belief that Newton's Laws are perfect either. Better yet, don't ask, you will get nightmares when u find out just how 'imperfect' our understanding is.
I can't say the same for evolution.
-
What other possibilities? Is there anything better out there? Independently verifiable and independently testable? hahahaha after so many posts you still don't get it.Originally posted by banzie:It has its flaws don't take it 100% keep a open mindedness for other possibilities.
-
Is evolution independently testable and verify?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:What other possibilities? Is there anything better out there? Independently verifiable and independently testable? hahahaha after so many posts you still don't get it. -
hahahahaha you never checked did you?Originally posted by banzie:Is evolution independently testable and verify? Yet you have so many things to say about something that you have no idea about!
about the evidence for Evolution... just Google for it... but in case you are too scared to do that, afraid that it might destroy your faith, don't do it...
I said that believers are so in need of a savior... please just stick on to whatever your religious beliefs are... you cannot survive in the real world... -
I'm not a science student, someone else explain if anyone is bothered.Originally posted by banzie:Why isn't newton law is wrong? You mean gravity is fake? Then try jumping down uob building maybe you'll fly. What I see in front of me is The law applies and it works no matter how imperfect our understanding may be. It is tested with results and it works. It is perfectly alright. Even if someone comes with a better explaination of newton's law, the fact that the part of the tested law will remain unchange becoz these truth doesn't change ever. Gravity will be there.
I can't say the same for evolution. -
I'm starting to think it is pointless to argue with him until he gets his facts straight.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:hahahahaha you never checked did you? Yet you have so many things to say about something that you have no idea about!
about the evidence for Evolution... just Google for it... but in case you are too scared to do that, afraid that it might destroy your faith, don't do it...
I said that believers are so in need of a savior... please just stick on to whatever your religious beliefs are... you cannot survive in the real world... -
Another thing to say..
One can debate and argue until the cows come home on who is right and wrong and what or who really created us and the world..
Our life span is only a tiny fraction when compared to the age of the earth. You know the example where scientists compressed the timeline of the earth into 1 day?
The 'Homo' series only starts appearing in the last 38 secs before midnight.
Modern human, Homo sapiensm only started appearing 4 secs before midnight.
So what im saying is that, evoulution, God, death, life after death, the universe etc etc are things beyond our scope and imagination.
But that does not humans from thinking abt all this. Which is why we create Theories to best try explain the mysteries arnd us. -
there are so many evidences for evolution.
-
there are also many unanswered questions and problems with it too.Originally posted by the.owl:there are so many evidences for evolution. -
at least I dont blindly believe what some book tells me, look, man can walk on water, and cast heal, and ressurrect himself! OMG, a shaman! LOL!!!!Originally posted by fatslob:there are also many unanswered questions and problems with it too. -
Originally posted by the.owl:at least I dont blindly believe what some book tells me, look, man can walk on water, and cast heal, and ressurrect himself! OMG, a shaman! LOL!!!!
Ah well.. let's not make fun of religion. There is, however remote, the chance that they were actually correct to a large extent. -
i appreciate you know the word 'sematic' argument. cos that is the common error make in argument in forum. people use words, including myself, without checking the accuracy of their meaning, thus creating more oppotunities for counter attacking.Originally posted by fatslob:Fundamentally flawed, that is perhaps a semantic argument. I would agree that as a predictive model it is definitely sufficient for most purposes, so perhaps 'fundamental' was not the best word to use. I'm just peeved at how banzie only understands science as an antithesis of religious dogma, that being unquestionably 'perfect' was a pre-requisite for legitimizing any theory.
it is a common human error. -
religious text all revolve around the same theme mah... GOD, fairies, satan, human beings, sins.. all ingredients of story telling... all just talk...Originally posted by fatslob:Funny thing is, the more we learn, the more 'fantastic' and 'warped' reality becomes. Compared to string theory and singularities, religious texts seem awfully tame in comparison.
then organise ritual in large place where many thousands of people gather, creating a spectucular atmosphere and the people will remember and be interested in these events.
then they go back to story telling, believing things using pseudo logic and attend the next mass ceremony..... and then bring pseudo evidence to convince themselves that all those ritual and praying and acting according to rules are the right things to do.
science, string theory although they are not easily carried out in lab, but there are test ongoing to study small things like the atom smashers....
they are many maths equations that is used trying to know things and nature. All those billions of dollars spent on space telescope and outer space project is scientific endevor to really try to bring back pictures and videos so that science can gain more knowledge. and do more real calculation and hypothesis.
Science is doing real work...... Science makes mistakes in hypothesis of course lah... when u are in dark trying to learn the truth .. surely will make wrong guess one mah...
but science has contributed most to the human civilisation... look at all our inventions... its all the work of science, inventions, engineering.. real work... -
you got study quantum mechanics or not? newton law is not too applicable when we go to nano size...Originally posted by banzie:Why isn't newton law is wrong? You mean gravity is fake? Then try jumping down uob building maybe you'll fly. What I see in front of me is The law applies and it works no matter how imperfect our understanding may be. It is tested with results and it works. It is perfectly alright. Even if someone comes with a better explaination of newton's law, the fact that the part of the tested law will remain unchange becoz these truth doesn't change ever. Gravity will be there.
I can't say the same for evolution.
newton law is useful in daily events observation.. but it is not everything. -
Banzie:
Go google type : flaw in newton law
and also, if you have any new and unanswered questions, post it here again. -
for religion, i know some of god believers do alot of charity work in the name of god.
but there are also non religion people who do charity work.
bill gates is atheist or non religion also... -
I did a little bit on semantics and post-structuralist thought during my time in the uni. That is probably why I don't see myself conforming to any organized religion, because, for somthing that claims to propogate a supreme and absolute truth, the medium of transmission is woefully inadequate and riddled with ambiguity.Originally posted by january:i appreciate you know the word 'sematic' argument. cos that is the common error make in argument in forum. people use words, including myself, without checking the accuracy of their meaning, thus creating more oppotunities for counter attacking.
it is a common human error.
I do try to be true to the spirit of being a 'free thinker', I will accept, or at least consider ideas that I find compelling, either in a scientific, inituitive or philosophical way.
EDIT: enough killing of brain cells.. time to pay a visit to BAR
-
the theory of evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible.
Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called "amino acids" that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands.
The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore the theory cannot even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of proteins, as will be discussed later.)
The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of proteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand.
For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living things.
In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 in 10300". The probability of this "1" to occur is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are thought of as "zero probability".
Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" is insufficient to describe the true situation.
When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 "types" of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.
Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case: these are definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers. They accept that the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein is "as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes" -
Now obviously many of your claims are reflecting quite bad on the athetist. it only got to shows how perjudice about athetist is. This thread was never about religion vs evolution and it seems that some athethist here got to a point that it is about religion. This thread is about evolution itself. I guess evolution to them is more than a theory it is just an anti christ tool. Is this how all athetist is like? Shallow.
Perhaps undeniable like some said newton laws is flawed at certain situation. Nano level? It means the law is not entirely detailed enough and our understanding is limited to that point. But you can't just deny about gravity. Even at that certain situation things is different, how do you know? Coz you can test it our right? Which is quite different from evolution. Evolution is still a theory. At least till this very point.
I think I had already proven my case. Evolution is flawed and it is a theory. People should take it that way as just another of the many explaination. It could be true but until then we found out. It is a theory. -
yea I did. So how did they test evolution out? By observation again? What kind of test is that? I see you holding a knife and it means you kill someone? The last person that claims they can test evolution was doubted by the claims. Still no concrete test yet.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:hahahahaha you never checked did you? Yet you have so many things to say about something that you have no idea about!
about the evidence for Evolution... just Google for it... but in case you are too scared to do that, afraid that it might destroy your faith, don't do it...
I said that believers are so in need of a savior... please just stick on to whatever your religious beliefs are... you cannot survive in the real world...
Unlike newton law, you throw a ball definitely it will fell down. -
the universe is so big, and yet earth is the only place we have found life, because it just so happened that hydrocarbons formed here on earth, by chance. you are right that the chance is very small, but so what? the universe is large enough for it.Originally posted by slowmover:the theory of evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible.
Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called "amino acids" that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands.
The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore the theory cannot even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of proteins, as will be discussed later.)
The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of proteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand.
For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living things.
In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 in 10300". The probability of this "1" to occur is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are thought of as "zero probability".
Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" is insufficient to describe the true situation.
When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 "types" of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.
Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case: these are definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers. They accept that the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein is "as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes" -
Maybe let's try it this way to let you understand. Why is evolution theory called evolution theory and not Law of Evolution?Originally posted by the.owl:the universe is so big, and yet earth is the only place we have found life, because it just so happened that hydrocarbons formed here on earth, by chance. you are right that the chance is very small, but so what? the universe is large enough for it.