davidylan:

I've been arguing this topic here for the last 2-3 yrs and i get the same ignorant escapist response from you connoisseurs of science.

If indeed evolution is true, where are the intermediate life forms? How come complex organisms that look exactly like their modern day counterparts appear suddenly in the fossil record? I guess i dont know anything anyway so why bother.

Dumb. That's a valid question . . . why is evolution a controversy today if it was widely accepted fact with empirical proof? No one spends all day arguing about the validity of gravity no?

davidylan:

I agree with you. Fair enough.

I dont think science and religion clash as in a lot of what passes for science today is simply man's desire to defy God Himself. I'm a scientist myself . . . its amazing how little science really knows about evolution when you finally get behind the bench yourself. If indeed RNA could be generated spontaneously, we would long have figured out how to cure genetic diseases today.

Idehn:

The sad irony is that the reason the videos I posted exist, is because scientifically illiterates like yourself keep repeating the same ridicules questions and objections ad nauseam.

Idehn:

For example
It was addressed in the video but I will answer it since you need to be spoon fed an answer to a question that has been answered to death . Fossilization does not occur to every single creature that walks the earth. It would be silly to expect that for every successive generation there would exist a fossil. However, of the fossils we do have(which are still many) they point to evolution.

Idehn:

I have no idea what you are talking about in your second question. You will need to present an example of what you mean.

Idehn:

Well around 2500 years ago in late antiquity, a religion telling people the first human being was fashioned from dirt began. This religion spread and changed(evolved you might say) over time, adapting new variations on the story until finally Christianity,Islam, Judaism and others were left. Naturally people do not like to face the fact that their most cherished beliefs are wrong. People of these particular faiths are no exception by any stretch of the imagination. Thus you wind up with controversy.

davidylan:

If indeed evolution is true, where are the intermediate life forms? How come complex organisms that look exactly like their modern day counterparts appear suddenly in the fossil record? I guess i dont know anything anyway so why bother.

why is evolution a controversy today if it was widely accepted fact with empirical proof? No one spends all day arguing about the validity of gravity no?

Evil Brain:

Rubbish. There are plenty of intermediate lifeforms in the fossil records. The evolution of man is extremely well documented in fossils. As is the evolution of modern birds, elephants horses, sharks, crocodillians and countless other species. For instance, there are several known species of bird-like dinosaurs (and dinosaur-like birds) with wings, feathers and teeth. Have you ever seen a chicken with teeth? Your information seems to be at least 50 years out of date.

Evil Brain:

Because a bunch of reetarded american evangelicals decided to cook up a fake controversy. Just like the global warming issue, the evolution "debate" is completely manufactured. The people responsible were a bunch of right wing christian-fundamentalist nutcases in the 1980s who were shocked that kids were being taught something that contradicted their religion in school. The sad fact is that whenever an inconvenient truth threatens a powerful group's faith or business interests, it is now possible to bury that truth in an avalanche of lies, half-truths and misinformation. Years of screaming from pulpits and a relentless media campaign has driven the truth form people's minds.

Evil Brain:

And America, the country that gave us Paris Hilton, Sarah Palin and George W. Bush is the centre of this anti-intellectual movement. Special interests have managed to completely discredit the scientific community, and have managed to put fairytales in school textbooks. They have convinced their people that being ignorant is somehow a virtue. Now a large percentage of the American people think that climate change is a conspiracy by evil scientists, and evolution is a conspiracy by evil scientists, and Obama is a communist, fascist, secret-muslim dictator. Nowadays even intelligent politicians like John McCain have to pretend to be stuupid and support the teaching of rubbish like intelligent design just to get votes.

The worst thing is how they are now exporting their special brand of stuupidity to the rest of the world. Evolution has been a settled issue in most of the world for over a century. It is the second best supported theory in all of science after gravitation. Now in formerly sane places like Europe seeds of doubt have been sown.

The most annoying thing is that nobody has been able counter the simple logic at the heart of Darwin's theory. The creationists are winning simply because they are making more noise. They are slowly pulling the world back into the dark ages. Making the world a dumber place.

kandiikane:

The ignorant calling others ignorant. . . You say you are a scientist but you have absolutely no idea about the basics of evolution. .Maybe you should have listened in class when you were in high school. .

You talk of micro evolution but still refer to evolution as if it only occurs on a larger scale. Plus, you called yourself and scientist but still don't see that HIV EVOLVES.

kandiikane:

Someone who did their science homework know that evolution is different from extinction that been said do not misquote what I wrote.

davidylan:

Probably because there are no serious answers to these alleged "ridiculous" questions no? How did RNA or L-amino acids appear from primeval soup? I doubt that is a ridiculous question considering there can be no life without them. Feel free to point to more empty videos spewing confused speculation.

Which makes very little sense if you took more than 3 seconds to think about it rather than gobbling up every word you heard. I thought that was what science was about? Questioning the validity of everything you hear no?

While it is true that fossilization does not occur to EVERY creature that walks the earth, isnt it curious that fossilization failed to occur for ANY intermediate life form? We have dinosaur fossils that are well preserved, we have shrimp fossils dating to over 40 billion years ago . . . but NOT ONE SINGLE intermediate life form? Yeah come up with a better excuse.

huh? the cambrian fossil problemm dude. You people spend too much time hyping up your own genius that you forget you do need to learn.

So i.e. only religious people have a problem with evolution? What a false and clearly silly thing to say.

Whole point of evolution=EVOLVING. . one specie evolved more superior to others.

insects developing immunity to pesticides is not the same as "evolution".

Idehn:

As the gentlemen explained earlier it was probably from prebiotic materials that could easily have existed on ancient earth(from the data we have). The link below, is by a researcher who used said chemicals to synthesize RNA without the use of enzymes or inorganic catalyst.
http://www.jbc.org/content/284/48/33206
Of course more study is required to determine(if possible), the exact conditions(temperatures/chemical compounds present/climate etc. . .) of primordial Earth, the paper(and some of the others it cites) is proof of concept that informational molecules like RNA, can self assemble from simpler molecules.

Idehn:

You may also be interested in the systhesis of said prebiotic elements.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/459171a.html

Unfortunately, I cannot extend access to the article for you, so will need obtain the full article yourself.

Idehn:

Again the video answered this ignorant objection. There is no exact or clean transition between species. Evey successive generation is in fact an intermediary form between species(as the offspring is a variation of the parent). After all Evolutionary changes take place over successive generations. If one of those generations is not fossilized, then technically their goes an intermediary. What normally occurs, is that clusters of newly discovered intermediaries are unearthed. They are typically found spaced apart by several generations apart and labeled as species of their own(if changes are significant enough).

Idehn:

We are fortunate however, that the fossil record for human ancestry is as full as it is(thank the climate of the Rift Valley). For example the growth of the human cranium is clearly observable in the fossil record. The change to upright walking is clearly observable from the fossil record.

Idehn:

Please watch the video to at least obtain a basic understanding of evolution/paleontology. It will take more than 3 seconds, but I think you can at least manage that.
I should have known you were going bring up the Cambrian Explosion. The issue is about the rate at which major evolutionary changes took place. In the Precambrian era as you should be aware, most organism were simple unicellular organism. It is during a period of 80 million years that complex multi-cellular organism like those that exist today began to form.

Idehn:

In short debate is between scientist who believe major evolutionary changes occur under a slow gradual process and between those who believe it can take place abruptly through relatively few generations. The answer is still up in the air due to lack of evidence. It is not a debate on whether or not evolution occurs at all(at least not among scientist).
Did I say only religious people oppose evolution? No. However, the main source of opposition to evolution are from those who espouse supernatural origins of life/man. This much is clear.

kandiikane:

I am going to explain: I wrote whole point of evolution= evolving and also one specie evolved more suprior referring to the question sexkills asked"why do humans have logic or use logic and chimps or apes don't"  

kandiikane:

This is a quote you made but you are wrong because the insects/pests evolve a stronger immunity to the pesticides. .
Insects/pest gain immunity aka resistance because of artificial selection included in pesticides. Which causes insects/pests with high tolerance to survive and breed outnumbering those that can be controlled by the pesticides. For this reason, more pesticides are made to control these new breeds(not just because of different companies making pesticides) of pests which then again evolve a stronger immunity to these new pesticides and it goes on and on.

It all relates back to natural selection because if these insects/pest do not follow the rules of evolution/not adapt they will die out.
I will give you an example; Neanderthals are sometimes referred to as a separate specie of the human race but they did not survive with different theories to why i.e climate change, selection, being hunted but the homo sapiens did survive because they did adapt. . This type of evolving still happens today and because it happens at a very tiny scale it is impossible to witness macro evolution. .

kandiikane:

I have said before I am not an expert in evolution, there are major holes that need to be filled but that is the whole point of science trying to find out and explain with reason for us all to understand. A hundred years ago these gaps where bigger but as years go by it gets filled up bit by bit.

These are all theories although with huge gaps but are quite reasonable to answer questions someone might have,
Many creationists do believe in biological evolution(believe it's is b/e is the work of a master mind) but just not macro evolution which will dispute the existence of a mastermind. .

harakiri:

Some people who should know better come here talking rubbish. If they fall ill and are near death, it's science they look up to. Everything about their daily lives revolves around science and yet, they give kudos to faith. How unfortunate.

harakiri:

I believe this thread is directed at Atheists but somehow, it's turned into a science fair.

harakiri:

In that regard, I can boldly say science has done more good for mankind than religion ever has (if there's any good in religion by the way). Science has unraveled mysteries,puzzles and saved lives ( I can't say the same about religion). Science is always undergoing change via research/findings/discoveries while religion remains in the stone age.

harakiri:

The so called "gaps" DAVIDYLAN mentioned are the yet to be unraveled mysteries and somehow he thinks he can score a cheap point with

harakiri:

whereas his bible is filled with with so many holes, you'd think it's a relic from the second world war! His bible's god claims "heavenly" hosts reside in the sky but science from proved this wrong by going beyond the sky into space.

harakiri:

His bible in it's "infinite" wisdom presents no cure for diseases except through miracles and prayer and I wonder if that's what he counts on when he falls ill. The bible depicts the earth as being four cornered but today, we all know better due to science. His bible is filled with so many lies that no sane human being would believe in today's world but so long as his bible says so, no wahala. He is quick to resent the big bangg theory but he believes he was made from sand! LOL ! He believes a virgin got pregnant without Being Intimate. He believes one man parted the red sea with his bare hands and another man walked on water. He believes one man fed FIVE THOUSAND people with only 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish. He believes a donkey spoke. He believes the first man had 3 ribs,had one removed and when it was placed in SAND, it turned into two thus creating a woman (una dey see maths!). He believes a man actually "told" the sun to stand still. He believes a man raced into the sky on a chariot (lol). He believes a man survived in the belly of a fish for 3 days without getting chewed,digested,no air,no water,no food and yet, he "lived". He believes a man travelled on foot round the world gathering male and female of EVERY specie to put in an ark (lol). How many I go talk?

harakiri:

At least,science provides theories and don't declare them as facts until there is unshakable evidence/proof. Without science, you would be running wild like a caveman eating berries and scanvenging on dead carcasses. Show some respect!

davidylan:

The thread was meant to elicit perspectives on the origin of life . . . not strictly for atheists even though this appears on the title.

Fair enough. But the argument has never been about science = bad and religion = good. Its been about why too many charlatans have resorted to using pseudo-science as a stick with which to beat religionists. It is one thing to sensibly advance scientific theories, it is another thing to simply poke around atheist websites, cope-paste drivel from there so as to appear smart.

these are not "so-called gaps", they are ACTUAL gaps that you have no answers to.

Secondly, i am not here to "Score cheap points" . . . simply making sure uninformed dunces like you stop using the science of others (that you dont understand anyway) as a cloak for your own disbelief. It is ok to have no religious belief . . . its even more hilarious considering me the so-called religious nut actually gets to work on the molecules you all bleat about because you saw a video on youtube.

Dumb. I assume you think that man has been to all parts of space right?

Christianity is about faith . . . i have never and will never dispute that. You are free to take it or leave it.

That is not in question. I get to test some of those facts and even present my own on a daily basis in an actual research lab unlike you who depend solely on google. I show my respect to science on a daily basis . . . i have made my own contributions that you can peruse through on pubmed. What have you done for science besides shilling like the charlatan you are?

harakiri:

Poor Davidylan How typical of him to desperately try to twist the "ABC's" to "CZC's". Kinda reminds me of a dying horse

harakiri:

Anyways, back to topic. . .

harakiri:

First of all, unless you think other posters have reading problems like yourself. . .the thread is solely directed at ATHEISTS!

harakiri:

Second, in spite of your lame attempt to twist what i said out of context, the thread once again addresses atheists and their views regarding "the origin of life" and the poster wants to know why our views differs from that of religious folks.

harakiri:

Third, when i say "unraveled mysteries", anyone with common sense knows i mean scientists have no answers at present. I never claimed they had all the answers but i stressed the fact that they are constantly researching but i guess you had to try a fast one didn't you? You just can't help yourself.

harakiri:

Fourth, it's not every Atheist that's an evolutionist and a lot of Christians are evolutionists. I keep wondering how shallow your mind really is. Don't you have any depth at all? Another failed shaming attempt by poor Dave!

harakiri:

Fifth, i have no problems with you or anyone else having faith in religion. Matter of fact, i don't even care. When i do care is when you try to rub off your delusions on us and make bold claims of them being fact! Now there. . .right there, is where the problem is.

harakiri:

Sixth, being the so called "charlatan" you call me, i never for once claimed i was a scientist or researcher. I'm just a simple guy. You on the other hand who works in a lab located in the SECOND BIGGEST CHEMICAL PLANT IN THE UNIVERSE should explain to us how you got transformed from SAND into a human being. Shebi you dey do research abi?

harakiri:

Anyways, back to topic. . .

the thread is solely directed at [size=15pt]ATHEISTS! [/size]
[size=15pt] the thread once again addresses atheists and their views regarding "the origin of life" and the poster wants to know why our views differs from that of religious folks.[/size]

@harakiri, can i get an ANSWER NOW? SCIENCE HAS FAILED TO ANSWER! IT'S OBVIOUS! So?

harakiri:

[size=13pt]We don't have the answers [/size] [size=13pt]We dwell on hard unshakable facts.[/size]

harakiri:

[size=15pt]"People mistrust what they don't understand and hate what they can't conquer". [/size]Nuff said!

sexkillz:

I'M GRADUALLY COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ATHEISM & THE WHOLE HOOLA LOOPA SURROUNDING ATHEISM IS ACTUALLY POINTLESS!!! ATHEISM IS LOGICALLY SELF DEFEATING!!!

IbroSaunks:

Hey,

This thread is soo long, i could spend the whole day reading it, would really distract me from work!

But the thing is, i get the atheists, and their claims about not knowing or trying to explain. But by taking such view, you are convincing yourself that there really isnt any answer. Because you can't find the answer to the question, doesn't mean some other peoples own is wrong.

You cannot make a conclusion that religion is wack if you haven't carefully analyzed all the religions and the basics of their belief system. If someone finds a question that trully works and makes sense to him, perhaps you just need to listen and view things from the persons perspective before you finally make a decision.

I don't know about you, but i think life would really be pointless if we just died and nothing happened after. That might be a sentiment, but search inside and look around, and see if you truly feel that we just become alive, live and die for nothing. Also, i implore you to look around you, see how everything is, the world, nature, just everything. Can you truly look at that and tell yourself that it all came by coincidence, that it just happened on its own? Even a pencil can't conceive itself.

I don't want to involve in any arguments cos im like, fasting now and would like to save my energy. I usually have much more to say, but i would stop here for now. Cheers and have a blissful day!