Not Just A Theory

[beerbitch]

The Theory of Evolution.

I have not seen enough good flame wars here lately so I thought I would stir the pot. I posted a short essay on our OPP forums to test the waters and a long thread resulted.

My original essay - http://notjustatheory.blogspot.com/

The thread in our forums - http://clan.oppressed.net/index.php?topic=1228.0

To summarize our forum discussion for those of you who don't like reading 13 pages of me getting kicked around  , basically I presented strong evidence for evolution, and nobody could refute any of it. There was some debate on things we don't know, even though I stipulated in my essay that we would not bring them up, people did anyway.

Also there was the beginnings of a good discussion on Intelligent Design, there might be some more added soon.

Finally, a link to the poll I did on our forums which is still open. Feel free to vote in it and skew the results  

http://clan.oppressed.net/index.php?topic=1243.0

Sadly, only 3 of us believe in evolution, but I do have a good chance of going to Hell so its not so bad.

[BeerBastard]

We tried to keep it a scientific debate. Talking about evolution not orgins.

I was totally surprised as the lack of acceptance. (at least from people on our forums)
I have looked into all the evidence and it is astronomical, hence why the scientific community accepts it.

Then they just went after Beerbitchs "worldview" in a way I didn't understand. They quoted him said based on what he said his worldview is wrong.

http://clan.oppressed.net/index.php?topic=1242.0

Then a friend told me to watch "expelled" because all the "scientists" who bring up another theory get in trouble.

I have never seen such a piece of propaganda as the movie expelled spouts. I checked into it, and there r sites upon sites that go through the movie and debunk it. Evolutionists are compared to the Nazis. The scientists try and argue that something looking intelligent is proof of intelligent design.

I bring up the movie because that was the fallback attack, to attack everyones worldview.

[beerbitch]

...
Then they just went after Beerbitchs "worldview" in a way I didn't understand. They quoted him said based on what he said his worldview is wrong.
...

I'm just an evil atheist heathen, dontchaknow ?  Therefore evolution must be false, cause I said otherwise.

[Winnie the Pooh]

The spin of the earth—which is now about 1,000 miles [1609 km] an hour—is gradually slowing down. Gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon, and other factors cause this. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it would already have stopped turning on its axis! This is yet another evidence that our world is not very old.

Lord Kelvin (the 19th-century physicist who introduced the Kelvin temperature scale) used this slowing rotation as a reason why the earth could not be very old. The decline in rotation rate is now known to be greater than previously thought (Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics: A Challenge to ‘Geologic Times,’ " Impact 16, July 1974).

Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backward from our present spin rate; and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. We, today, would still have the effects of that: Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.

[BeerBastard]

The spin of the earth—which is now about 1,000 miles [1609 km] an hour—is gradually slowing down. Gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon, and other factors cause this. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it would already have stopped turning on its axis! This is yet another evidence that our world is not very old.

Lord Kelvin (the 19th-century physicist who introduced the Kelvin temperature scale) used this slowing rotation as a reason why the earth could not be very old. The decline in rotation rate is now known to be greater than previously thought (Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics: A Challenge to ‘Geologic Times,’ " Impact 16, July 1974).

Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backward from our present spin rate; and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. We, today, would still have the effects of that: Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.

Source? Credible scientific? That the earth is actually slowing down. A 30 year old book of someone who thought it might be so isn't proof.

[beerbitch]

The spin of the earth—which is now about 1,000 miles [1609 km] an hour—is gradually slowing down. Gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon, and other factors cause this. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it would already have stopped turning on its axis! This is yet another evidence that our world is not very old.

Lord Kelvin (the 19th-century physicist who introduced the Kelvin temperature scale) used this slowing rotation as a reason why the earth could not be very old. The decline in rotation rate is now known to be greater than previously thought (Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics: A Challenge to ‘Geologic Times,’ " Impact 16, July 1974).

Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backward from our present spin rate; and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. We, today, would still have the effects of that: Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.

Source? Credible scientific? That the earth is actually slowing down. A 30 year old book of someone who thought it might be so isn't proof.

Actually, I can just reference the talkorigins page on this subject, the rebuttal is backed up by scientific evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html

If you're going to use arguments from Kent Hovind you might also mention he is in prison for being a lying cheat.  

I'm sorry, that sounded a little like an ad hominum attack, pardon me. Must be that other thread rubbing off on me.

[Winnie the Pooh]

First of all, I'm not quoting Kent Hovind, this has absolutely nothing to do with him and I'd like you to keep him out of the discussion.

Secondly, these do not agree:

Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backward from our present spin rate; and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. We, today, would still have the effects of that: Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.

The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

Why does one say something different from the other? One must be lying or mistaken or exaggerating or belittling.

[beerbitch]

First of all, I'm not quoting Kent Hovind, this has absolutely nothing to do with him and I'd like you to keep him out of the discussion.

Secondly, these do not agree:

Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backward from our present spin rate; and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. We, today, would still have the effects of that: Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old.

The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

Why does one say something different from the other? One must be lying or mistaken or exaggerating or belittling.

Apologies on Hovind, my snarkiness was showing.

You are making the assumption that the Earth always spun at a particular rate since it has existed. Our solar system was not always so calm and accommodating. Where does our Moon come from for example ? I addressed the moon orbit decay rate in my essay, its basically the same kind of argument.

If you like math like you seem to, you might enjoy reading this :

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

[Winnie the Pooh]

Well, sorry for not reading all of your essay, it was a little long.

As for your argument, planets do not spin faster very well on their own. So either some productive mechanism sped the earth up, something massive hit the earth at exactly the right angle to speed it up, or the earth is younger than you theorize.

My theory states that the moon was put in motion by an intelligent being not limited by time or space.

[beerbitch]

Here is another rebuttal of it  -

#20 taken from this page - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html

Presently, the earth's rotation is slowing down 0.005 seconds per year per year (Thwaites and Awbrey, 1982, p.19). At least Dr. Hovind doesn't use the horrendous rate of 1 second per year which Dr. Walter Brown employed as a result of a total misunderstanding of time keeping. I believe that Dr. Brown discarded that argument upon realizing his error, but don't expect it to disappear from the creationist literature. Only a towering optimist could expect that!

The actual rate of 0.005 seconds per year per year yields, if rolled back 4.6 billion years, a 14-hour day. The subject is a bit tricky the first time around, and I'm indebted to Thwaites and Awbrey (1982) whose fine article cleared away the cobwebs.

Let's do the calculation for 370 million years ago:

((0.005 sec/yr) x (370 million yr))/Year = (1,850,000 sec)/Year
= (21.4 days)/Year

Thus, at 370 million years ago, the earth had 21.4 extra days per year.

The total days then per year were: (365.25 + 21.4)days/Year = 386.65 days/Year.

(8766 hrs/Year)/(386.65 days/Year) = 22.7 hrs/day

If you do the same calculations for 4.6 billion years ago, you'll get the 14 hrs/day given by Drs. Thwaites and Awbrey. Thus, there is no problem here for mainstream science. Indeed, the present rate may be too high:

    ...the correct present rate of slowing of the earth's rotation is excessively high, because the present rate of spin is in a resonance mode with the back-and-forth

    motion of the oceans' waters in the ocean basins. In past ages when the rotation rate was faster, the resonance was much less or nonexistent, resulting in a much more gradual slowing of the rotation rate. The most recent calculations indicate that the earth could be 4 to 5 billion years old and not have been spinning excessively fast or requiring the moon to be any closer to the earth than 225,000 kilometers (140,000 miles).

    (Sonleitner, 1991, file=MOVIE2.WP)

A study of rugose corals from the Devonian (370 million years ago), initiated by John W. Wells of Cornell University in 1963, indicated that the year then had 400 days of about 22 hours each. For a discussion of coral clocks see Dott & Batten (1976, pp.248-249). Subsequent work with corals of Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and modern origin have produced highly revealing, if approximate, results.

    Determinations of the same kind were made for algal deposits (stromatolites) of the Upper Cambrian (-510 m.y.) (Pannella et al., 1968). Plots of the collected data for the entire time span from Recent back through the Paleozoic Era showed a nonuniform increase in days per month going back in time, and from this it is inferred that tidal friction has not been uniform in that period.

    (Strahler, 1987, p.147)

Studies of the chambered nautilus, for a time, was also proposed as a geologic clock by Kahn and Pompea. However, that effort ran into problems. Creationists still cite it in their efforts to discredit the coral clocks. Each case, of course, has to be judged on its own merits. The nautilus is not a coral, and the coral clocks are good enough to destroy the young-earth claims.

From the present slowing down of the earth's spin we get a day of 22.7 hours 370 million years ago; 370 million years ago is the approximate radiometric date of those rugose corals. And, a study of the rugose corals confirms that the day then was about 22 hours long. In this example we have a remarkable, if rough, agreement between two, diverse dating methods.

These facts spell "Old Earth."

[beerbitch]

...
My theory states that the moon was put in motion by an intelligent being not limited by time or space.
...

Perhaps debating here with me would be a waste of your time then ?

You are free to believe that, naturally, but no empirical evidence I could present will ever be enough if you already accept and believe in miracles.

I should add that I asked about the moon because one moon origins theory is that a large celestial object collided with an early earth and later formed the moon.

[Winnie the Pooh]

Perhaps debating here with me would be a waste of your time then ?

Not at all. See, if my God added things to the universe all the time or changed the speed of the planet, or turned back time frequently, then it would be very difficult to prove anything. Luckily, my God decided not to touch anything once he created the world, so all we need to do is look at processes that we see happening and determine a starting point for them. That starting point would be the creation.

As for your rebuttal up there, it doesn't address anything about gravity forces resulting from centrifugal force or oceans/seas being moved to the poles. If you can address that, that would be nice. I'm not arguing about whether a fourteen-hour day is possible, I'm arguing about whether conditions like that are viable for human life.

[Winnie the Pooh]

I should add that I asked about the moon because one moon origins theory is that a large celestial object collided with an early earth and later formed the moon.

If that is true, then why don't we have a very large crater somewhere and why is the moon still so close to earth?

[beerbitch]

I should add that I asked about the moon because one moon origins theory is that a large celestial object collided with an early earth and later formed the moon.

If that is true, then why don't we have a very large crater somewhere and why is the moon still so close to earth?

Here is a good rundown on the prevailing theories on the subject -

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins.html

You can mine some vids out of this search result if you want to see visually how it may have looked -

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moon+origin&search_type=&aq=f

[Winnie the Pooh]

If that is true, then why don't we have a very large crater somewhere and why is the moon still so close to earth?

This is not explained in your site.

[beerbitch]

Perhaps debating here with me would be a waste of your time then ?

Not at all. See, if my God added things to the universe all the time or changed the speed of the planet, or turned back time frequently, then it would be very difficult to prove anything. Luckily, my God decided not to touch anything once he created the world, so all we need to do is look at processes that we see happening and determine a starting point for them. That starting point would be the creation.

As for your rebuttal up there, it doesn't address anything about gravity forces resulting from centrifugal force or oceans/seas being moved to the poles. If you can address that, that would be nice. I'm not arguing about whether a fourteen-hour day is possible, I'm arguing about whether conditions like that are viable for human life.

I'll get to the centrifugal force answer after I read some scientific publications on the subject, perhaps this evening. Outside of Ken Hovinds version of this question I have not see it before.

[beerbitch]

If that is true, then why don't we have a very large crater somewhere and why is the moon still so close to earth?

This is not explained in your site.

It is if you accept that the Earth has been around for a few billions of years and had all that time to recover from the impact.

Another link on the subject - http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html

You can Google plenty of scientific studies done on this subject-

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=moon+origin&hl=en&btnG=Search

[KillerWhale]

One thing that I'd like to point out as this debate gets going that I either missed in Beerbitch's essay, or was not there is that evolution does not have "choice".

On the OPP forum thread, Clayborn argued "Why didn't evolution just make a smart ape which could survive better?".
That's because evolution isn't out looking around, "OH, LOOK, APES ARE STRONG. LET'S MAKE THEM SMART TOO."

Simply, it's just what happens, happens.



Evolution itself is not a force, but rather, a grouping of events that are widely accepted, but get all controversial-like when put together.

Here's three things that I don't really think anyone could refute:

Code: [Select]

1) Offspring are like their parents.
2) Something that is dead cannot have offspring.
3) If something is better suited for where it lives, it will survive better than things that aren't.*
*There are of course, situational outliers; in general, it stands true.

Those are really the basic principles of evolution.

Here's some examples for those three things:

Code: [Select]

1) You are like your parents, right?
If you breed two dogs, the puppies are going to look something like the parent dogs, right? **

**Again, there are outliers in which the offspring are more like higher generations in the family, due to recessive and dominant genes.

Code: [Select]

2) Do I really even need to say this one?
You shoot a deer. It dies. Is it going to magically spring to life and go have sex?
I highly doubt it.

Code: [Select]

3) Let's say, there if a big room with mice in it. These mice are of different sizes.
The way to get food is to go through a hole, which has food on the other side.
Mice that are too large for the hole will not get through, therefore, they will not eat and will die of starvation.

These smaller mice who can fit through the hole are better suited to the environment of the large room with a hole in it and will survive better than the large mice who are not suited for that same area.
Now, let's expand on #3 a bit. So, these small mice are suited for this box and living. These not dead mice can live long enough to have babies, which will be like them, relying on property #1. The large mice who are not eating are dying, so, they cannot have babies, which will soon make less and less big mice.

This is all I feel like typing up for now, I'll add in a bit more in a bit.

[Bissig]

Evoltuion is a SCIENTIFIC theory, whereas "Intelligent Design" is as convincing as the "healing" power of stones.

Btw.: The shape and creation of the earth have NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution (evolution is about genetics/animals/plant life). But I guess you creationism fucks are just too silly to use the last bits of brains you got left.

[KillerWhale]

But I guess you creationism fucks are just too silly to use the last bits of brains you got left.

This is sure a hell of a way to convince someone of something.

Anyways, I'd like to see a refrain from comments like these.
To both sides of the argument, their position seems "so obvious", but is puzzling to the other.
Calling names and insulting intelligence will not help anyone expand their horizons or keep a debate legitimate, flaming just leads to flaming.

[Winnie the Pooh]

It is if you accept that the Earth has been around for a few billions of years and had all that time to recover from the impact.

If that is true, why is our moon still so close? After all, our moon should have floated far away from earth from now, even if you take into account the gravity inverse square law.

Edit:

Evoltuion is a SCIENTIFIC theory, whereas "Intelligent Design" is as convincing as the "healing" power of stones.

Btw.: The shape and creation of the earth have NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution (evolution is about genetics/animals/plant life). But I guess you creationism fucks are just too silly to use the last bits of brains you got left.

Bissig, shut up and read the conversation. You've just lowered everyone's opinion of you. Don't think you can just come in and shout something and leave and think everyone will think you're so wise because you summed it up in one post.

And on top of all that, you're wrong about "The shape and creation of the earth having nothing to do with the theory of evolution."

The only way animals could EVER evolve to humans (if at all) would be through very long slow processes that involve TIME. Therefore, if we can prove a young earth and universe, the theory of evolution will be discredited. So you see, evolution very much DOES have to do with the shape and the creation of the earth.

I'M the silly one? Yeah.. sure. I'm sure it's evident.

[Winnie the Pooh]

One thing that I'd like to point out as this debate gets going that I either missed in Beerbitch's essay, or was not there is that evolution does not have "choice".

On the OPP forum thread, Clayborn argued "Why didn't evolution just make a smart ape which could survive better?".
That's because evolution isn't out looking around, "OH, LOOK, APES ARE STRONG. LET'S MAKE THEM SMART TOO."

Simply, it's just what happens, happens.



Evolution itself is not a force, but rather, a grouping of events that are widely accepted, but get all controversial-like when put together.

Here's three things that I don't really think anyone could refute:

Code: [Select]

1) Offspring are like their parents.
2) Something that is dead cannot have offspring.
3) If something is better suited for where it lives, it will survive better than things that aren't.*
*There are of course, situational outliers; in general, it stands true.

Those are really the basic principles of evolution.

Here's some examples for those three things:

Code: [Select]

1) You are like your parents, right?
If you breed two dogs, the puppies are going to look something like the parent dogs, right? **

**Again, there are outliers in which the offspring are more like higher generations in the family, due to recessive and dominant genes.

Code: [Select]

2) Do I really even need to say this one?
You shoot a deer. It dies. Is it going to magically spring to life and go have sex?
I highly doubt it.

Code: [Select]

3) Let's say, there if a big room with mice in it. These mice are of different sizes.
The way to get food is to go through a hole, which has food on the other side.
Mice that are too large for the hole will not get through, therefore, they will not eat and will die of starvation.

These smaller mice who can fit through the hole are better suited to the environment of the large room with a hole in it and will survive better than the large mice who are not suited for that same area.
Now, let's expand on #3 a bit. So, these small mice are suited for this box and living. These not dead mice can live long enough to have babies, which will be like them, relying on property #1. The large mice who are not eating are dying, so, they cannot have babies, which will soon make less and less big mice.

This is all I feel like typing up for now, I'll add in a bit more in a bit.

So true.

This leads to DDT resistant insects and different strains of diseases that are resistant to the antibiotics that we use.

However, every time the smaller mice reproduce, the result is always a MOUSE is it not?

The need for smaller mice does not produce snakes, it just produces smaller mice. And even then, won't a large mouse be born once in a while?

[KillerWhale]

The need for smaller mice does not produce snakes, it just produces smaller mice. And even then, won't a large mouse be born once in a while?

Ah, and that is where you misunderstand macroevolution.

You are totally right in the respect that a mouse will NOT have a baby snake.
An orange tree will not grow a watermelon.
Cat will not all of a sudden have a dog as a baby.
Where new species come from is speciation.

Basically, when enough microevolution happens that two groups are unable to mate, that is when you get a new species.
If you have enough of this over time(suppose our argument of billions of years), and all over all the different places on Earth, you can get the wide range of species that we have.

Note: The following is for example purposes ONLY. This is not AT ALL how snakes came to be, and nothing like this will ever happen to mice.

Code: [Select]

Let's go back to the mice in a room example. Say, you have the same room. But now, the hole traps the mice as they come in, and behind it is a tunnel.
The longer the mice are, the more food they can grab, because, as our earlier example, the mice have gotten very small and short.
These longer mice can reach more food, and therefore they survive. The more and more mice there are, the farther back they have to go into the tunnel. After many generations of this, you have mice that are six and seven feet long, while being skinny enough to go in the holes.
Suddenly, the box breaks, and these snake-mice are let out into a field with other mice.
Mating season comes around, but it is different for the long mice. They try to get all jiggy with the normal mice outside, but the normal ones are all up in their grill like, "Ew, you're six feet long and it's not our mating season bitch go get me a soda."
So, these mice do not resemble the normal mice, and they cannot mate with the normal mice. Would you still call these mice the same species?

Now, imagine a few billion years of this, and you have how we can get these wild and different species.

Every animal has to try and fit a different niche to survive, and when trying to fit these different niches, they gradually change into something unidentifiable from where they started.

[BeerBastard]

Well, sorry for not reading all of your essay, it was a little long.

As for your argument, planets do not spin faster very well on their own. So either some productive mechanism sped the earth up, something massive hit the earth at exactly the right angle to speed it up, or the earth is younger than you theorize.

My theory states that the moon was put in motion by an intelligent being not limited by time or space.

And you have no evidence for this "intelligent designer", therefore it isn't science. Something looking like it could be "intelligent" isn't prove of intelligence. You have just stated your belief, a belief withour evidence, which means based on faith. Faith means you believe in it in absence of proof.

You are assuming the Moon has always been there.

As for the smart ape thing. Creationists and such like to say evolution says you came from monkeys.
Let me correct this.

We have a common ancestor. One evolved strength and abilities to live in the jungle.
One evolved more intellectually and became the a weed species of the earth.

Which one is the "super ape"?

[your face]

I suppose I'll jump into this flame war head first, then:

evolution sux kthxbai

[Helix.]

Please lock this uselessness.

[mooseberry]

Please lock this uselessness.

Just because you can't understand any of it does not make it useless.

[Rocinante]

I'd say this thread is one plus a thousand times more useful than all the stupid bacon banners :>

(One plus, because 1000 * 0 is still 0, and this is more)

[KillerWhale]

I believe this thread will be appropriate if the discussion stays as civil as it is now.

If a flame war erupts, I would recommend a lock, but not a delete.
A fat lot of good what I recommend will do though.

[A Spork]

Yay for blatant trolling!
I Have just this to say: The theory of Evolution is just that: a THEORY.
You are assuming that just because microevolution can and does occur, that that is how everything must have started. There is still no solid proof for evolution.