It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity

[Nihilist Virus]

Everything we are and everything in the universe and on Earth originated from stardust, and it continually floats through us even today. It directly connects us to the universe, rebuilding our bodies over and again over our lifetimes.

Well aware of this. Have you never seen my sig?

[Huggy Bear]

Everything we are and everything in the universe and on Earth originated from stardust, and it continually floats through us even today. It directly connects us to the universe, rebuilding our bodies over and again over our lifetimes.

Well aware of this. Have you never seen my sig?

Your sig is implying that stardust and the dust of the earth are completely different things.

why else would you change "dust" into "stardust"?

[Nihilist Virus]

Well aware of this. Have you never seen my sig?

Your sig is implying that stardust and the dust of the earth are completely different things.

why else would you change "dust" into "stardust"?

No such implication was made. I made the change to emphasize the fact that the ancients who wrote the Bible had no clue about how the universe works. If you really believe that this mention of Adam being made from dust is to be taken as an indication that the Bible was professing knowledge that its writers otherwise had no access to, then you have to be intellectually honest and address the rib along with the dust: if Eve was made from Adam's rib then they would be genetically identical. As we saw when Jacob was breeding goats, the ancients didn't have the first clue about genetics.

[LadyForCamus]

Look, if a scientific theory is not a fact (defined by your own source) then it is opinion, that's all there is to it. You made it very clear that theories can change, Facts however do not.

Oh my god, seriously? Now I feel like you are playing dumb. I don't know how much more clear I can be: A scientific theory is the highest level of graduation in science. It is comprised of many, many scientific facts that have been demonstrated repeatedly to the degree that they have predictive power, and can accurately describe how something works. No, not every theory in science may be considered a fact (yet) but a theory CONTAINS FACTS. And to Rob's point, evolution in particular has been so well demonstrated that it is considered scientific fact. The problem here is that you simply refuse to accept the lay-person's use of the word "theory," is not the same as "scientific theory." No one can force you to see this, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Seriously? Weren't you the one claiming life had been created in a lab, and even linked to sources YOU thought backed up that claim? Anyone with half a brain knew that was a bogus claim seeing how that would have been the biggest achievement in the history on mankind, yet you want to talk about my level of understanding...

I feel like we are going around in circles here, Huggy. Not only did I acknowledge that my word choice was imprecise, I went ahead and corrected myself. That is to say: necessary building blocks for life have been demonstrated to arise both naturally and artificially in the lab. Building blocks that, by the way, happen to fit theoretical models scientists are positing for potential mechanisms of abiogenesis. Imagine that.

Further more, I went on to explain that my poor word choice was in no way detrimental to the point I was making. Remember "follow the evidence"? But alas, you ignored all that.

If you understood the Bible, you couldn't see it as anything other than the truth. Bid not Jesus say that the scriptures (speaking of the old testament) testify of him? The whole bible is about Jesus Christ.

Ah, the old: "you're just not reading it right" defense. Sorry, but you don't get to say the bible is true because it says so in the bible. That is like, the antithesis of evidence.

Please. all I did was show that the bible and evolution don't contradict insomuch as animals do evolve, I just don't believe we all evolved from an amoeba.

Exactly. You go along with science until it hits a point where there is an undeniable contradiction, at which point you default to your unsupported beliefs, instead of following the evidence. You not being able to fathom that life arose from non-life, and that we all share a common ancestor has no bearing on whether or not it's actually true. This is a fallacy from personal incredulity.

So you completely gloss over the fact that there was an audio recording 1958 (which was not part of the TV program but was added later) that corroborates that she was telling the truth? Also a man (William Branham) who never seen her before being able to tell her where she was from and what her trouble was.

You're not listening. I don't care if she was telling the truth. If you are going to assert that what supposedly happened to this woman was the result of divine intervention versus a rare medical occurrence, you have to demonstrate that. You must first demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't natural, and then you must demonstrate that it was God. You cant.

God Is a God of order, not chaos, there is a reason for how things work, relativity existed long before it was ever defined. Radio waves existed long before there was a radio. Aerodynamics existed long before there were aeronautical engineers.

.

So, for some reason God decided to use philosophical language and incomplete descriptions for the laws governing his own universe, yet he takes the time to explain in detail the rules for acquisitioning and beating of slaves? Right.

visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins newsgroup. While many of the participants in talk.origins are well regarded scientists, this informal procedure is not as demanding as the process a scientist goes through to publish a paper in a scientific journal. It is important to keep this fact in mind when reading the contents of this archive. Because most of the essays have not undergone rigorous peer review, some of them may contain errors or misstatements of fact. Any errors you identify should be reported to the authors or to the editor. The archive also maintains a contact page.

If this is acceptable to you, I don't want to hear complaints of any sources I link not being peer reviewed.

Lol, sure, and way to leave out the most important part. Every essay links to the original research it uses, and the website also self-corrects with a 'report' link for errors. Hmm...'critical thinking,' and 'self-correcting.' There are those phrases again...

[Huggy Bear]

[Pat Mustard]

Sorry, I missed where I said that....... could you point that out for me, the bit where I said that a huge population of humans came from nowhere?  Or are you creating a big man made from straw?

Anyhoo, I must admit, I'm no subject matter expert here......but the most basic understanding of genetics leads even a layman like me to suggest that thinking the entire human race came from 2 people to be a special kind of stupid.

Look Genius,

My brother in-law breeds dogs (American bully's), There is a lot of inbreeding early on, which is how you solidify traits that you want.

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/inbreeding.htm

Inbreeding is the mating together of closely related dogs, for example mother/son, father/daughter and sibling/sibling matings. For breeders, it is a useful way of fixing traits in a breed—the pedigrees of some exhibition dogs show that many of their forebears are closely related. For example, there is a famous cat by the name of Fan Tee Cee (shown in the 1960s and 1970s) who has appeared in more and more Siamese pedigrees, sometimes several times in a single pedigree, as breeders were anxious to make their lines more typey. Superb specimens are always much sought-after for stud services or offspring (unless they have already been neutered!), having won the approval of show judges.


However, inbreeding holds potential problems. The limited gene pool caused by continued inbreeding means that deleterious genes become widespread and the breed loses vigor. Laboratory animal suppliers depend on this to create uniform strains of animal which are immuno-depressed or breed true for a particular disorder, e.g. epilepsy. Such animals are so inbred as to be genetically identical (clones!), a situation normally only seen in identical twins. Similarly, a controlled amount of inbreeding can be used to fix desirable traits in farm livestock, e.g. milk yield, lean/fat ratios, rate of growth, etc.

Now The bible says we started with 2 humans, and those humans lived over 900+ years, currently we're lucky if we live to 90.

Do the math.

Huggy, the fact is we live longer now than any generation that existed before us. Back in the Roman empire you could expect to live 25 to 30 years, unless you were lucky enough to be rich and survive infancy (child mortality befor 5 was, at best 50/50). And all the evidence from arcaeology from before then suggests you were ancient by 40. There is no way that in 4000 bce or whenever people lived to be 900, we'd have found evidence.

Oh, and on your idea about selective inbreeding being the cause, we know what that does, just look up the Spanish Habsburgs some day. It doesn't make people's lives 10 times shorter, it makes them much more prone to genetic defects. What you are proposing is that a gene pool of two lead to us. This is impossible, a gene pool of two would have lasted about five generations before irreprable genetic collapse and species extinction.

[Huggy Bear]

Huggy, the fact is we live longer now than any generation that existed before us. Back in the  Roman empire you could expect to live 25 to 30 years, unless you were lucky enough to be rich and survive infancy (child mortality befor 5 was, at best 50/50). And all the evidence from arcaeology from before then suggests you were ancient by 40. There is no way that in 4000 bce or whenever people lived to be 900, we'd have found evidence.

Let me stop you here.

what you are talking about is the AVERAGE life expectancy.

If we go by your numbers of the child mortality rate being 50% before the age of 5, and say the other 50% lived to be 70; that would be an AVERAGE life expectancy of about 37 years.

So no, you were not ancient by 40 it's just that the high child mortality rates bring down the average, got it?

[Pat Mustard]

Huggy, the fact is we live longer now than any generation that existed before us. Back in the  Roman empire you could expect to live 25 to 30 years, unless you were lucky enough to be rich and survive infancy (child mortality befor 5 was, at best 50/50). And all the evidence from arcaeology from before then suggests you were ancient by 40. There is no way that in 4000 bce or whenever people lived to be 900, we'd have found evidence.

Let me stop you here.

what you are talking about is the AVERAGE life expectancy.

If we go by your numbers of the child mortality rate being 50% before the age of 5, and say the other 50% lived to be 70; that would be an AVERAGE life expectancy of about 37 years.

So no, you were not ancient by 40 it's just that the high child mortality rates bring down the average, got it?

Bullshit. What you are doing is extrapolating that a lot of the people we know about lived for a long time out to "a significant number of people lived that long". Well guess what, most of the people we know about were rich, they had access to good food, good (for those times) medicine, didn't work that hard, could leave the city during plagues or general unhealthy periods (most of Rome's glitterati left for Baiae and other spa towns during the summer, when malaria was rampant). A quick google search will actually give you historical research on the topic of life expectancy in ancient Rome (the figures in that thread's OP can be found here), based off the available evidence, the proportion of those living in Rome aged 65 or over at any period was somewhere in the region of 4.7%.

For comparison here is Italy's current age graph:


The fact of the matter is people live longer now than they ever had, even 120 years ago the average life expectancy in the Western world was about half of what it is today. Bar ragnarok (of either nuclear, climate or other violent means) or complete economic collapse, both you and I can reasonably expect to live for somewhere between 70 and 80 years (and quite reasonably expect to live longer if we keep healthy and have a good job). That cannot be said for any other period in time before the 1960's.

[Huggy Bear]

Let me stop you here.

what you are talking about is the AVERAGE life expectancy.

If we go by your numbers of the child mortality rate being 50% before the age of 5, and say the other 50% lived to be 70; that would be an AVERAGE life expectancy of about 37 years.

So no, you were not ancient by 40 it's just that the high child mortality rates bring down the average, got it?

Bullshit. What you are doing is extrapolating that a lot of the people we know about lived for a long time out to "a significant number of people lived that long". Well guess what, most of the people we know about were rich, they had access to good food, good (for those times) medicine, didn't work that hard, could leave the city during plagues or general unhealthy periods (most of Rome's glitterati left for Baiae and other spa towns during the summer, when malaria was rampant). A quick google search will actually give you historical research on the topic of life expectancy in ancient Rome (the figures in that thread's OP can be found here), based off the available evidence, the proportion of those living in Rome aged 65 or over at any period was somewhere in the region of 4.7%.

For comparison here is Italy's current age graph:


The fact of the matter is people live longer now than they ever had, even 120 years ago the average life expectancy in the Western world was about half of what it is today. Bar ragnarok (of either nuclear, climate or other violent means) or complete economic collapse, both you and I can reasonably expect to live for somewhere between 70 and 80 years (and quite reasonably expect to live longer if we keep healthy and have a good job). That cannot be said for any other period in time before the 1960's.

Did you just forget what you posted?

You clearly stated "all the evidence from arcaeology from before then suggests you were ancient by 40", yet you backpedal and acknowledge that 4.7 of ancient Romans did indeed live to be 65 and older (which makes your figure of "40" an average figure, which was my point); what does that make them? really really ancient?

Also I see you left out major factor in why the life expectancy was so low in ancient times; war.

[LadyForCamus]