Despite having seen a number of claims that there are "holes" in evolutionary theory, I recall only one which is, IMHO, easily discounted.
That one is that there are no transitional species in the fossil record. That is untrue. There is no reason to expect that all organic critters would leave fossil traces. There are few transitional fossil species, but they do exist.
The evolution of horses from the ancient eohippus species is well known although not many investigators have actually reported the complexity of coexistence sequences in that family.
Less well know is the fact that there is a 40 million year fossil record of the evolution from reptile to mammal, primarily on the basis of jaw muscles and tooth forms.
So, would someone care to inform this aging agnostic of what other specific, supposed holes in evolutionary theory exist?
One last thought. Is there any fundamental difference between the way that the large number of animal pets of humans have been bred and evolution other than the fact that the selection pressures for pets have been provided by humans rather than "natural" environments?
Are you trying to say we are intelligent designers of domesticated animals? Or am I looking to much into this? LOL
so what's the answer to the x-en and the egg riddle?all major changes are accidental ENHANCING mutations!?!all i can say is arn't we lucky!!luck is scientifically provable..right? 
I would say one of the biggest holes is the unbelievable complexity of DNA! With all the supercomputing power and human intellect that is tackling this area, we're only at the tip. Nature, with no intelligence, no sentience, could not have developed something this complex, no matter how long its given. Every organism has it. Even the simplest strand of DNA from the so called first cell would have been highly structured. It couldn't just magically appear. It takes myriad engineers--who are the top in their fields--to design the forefront of human inventions. Nothing humans have engineered even comes close to the simplest organism (or even a cell).
You'd have to have blind faith to believe in evolution, not Creation (designed through intelligence).
y4r
(1 Cor 1:18-24 NIV) For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. {19} For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." {20} Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? {21} For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. {22} Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, {23} but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, {24} but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
You'd have to have blind faith to believe in evolution, not Creation (designed through intelligence).
y4r
(1 Cor 1:18-24 NIV) For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. {19} For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." {20} Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? {21} For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. {22} Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, {23} but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, {24} but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
QUOTE (yeshua4real+Aug 20 2005, 04:00 AM)
I would say one of the biggest holes is the unbelievable complexity of DNA! With all the supercomputing power and human intellect that is tackling this area, we're only at the tip. Nature, with no intelligence, no sentience, could not have developed something this complex, no matter how long its given. Every organism has it. Even the simplest strand of DNA from the so called first cell would have been highly structured. It couldn't just magically appear. It takes myriad engineers--who are the top in their fields--to design the forefront of human inventions. Nothing humans have engineered even comes close to the simplest organism (or even a cell).
You'd have to have blind faith to believe in evolution, not Creation (designed through intelligence).
DNA is not overly complex.
DNA is simply a chemically linked chain of nucleotides, each of which consists of a sugar, a phosphate and one of four kinds of bases. These are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine, and guanine (G). They combine to form nucleotides but they will only pair up like this: A+T, T+A, C+G and G+C; They are interpreted in groups of three, meaning DNA has 64 different combinations. In a computer these would be thought of as the instruction set. Three sets of these pairs represent end markers and thus create individual groups of these 64 instructions. In a computer these would be thought of as a routine/method or function. And while the "program" for life forms is complex it is not as complex as any number of existing computer systems. It is clever however.
And so its obvious that it is not DNA per se that is complex, but the grouping of the nucleotide pairs is. None the less it is analagous to a sophisticated computer program and one that could easily be "written" in the time life has been on the earth.
The first "cells" would not be NEARLY as complex as the cells in your body but would have been more like a Virus, a simple protein sheath wrapped around a DNA's simpler cousin, RNA. RNA though has one property that is special, put in a mix of the right other chemicals and it will create a copy of itself. i.e. replicate. But this process is entirely chemical in nature and quite simple too boot.
Jumping ahead, the first bacteria are likewise much simpler than a cell and infact your bodies cells are all "infected" with some of these very primitive bacteria, known as Mitochondria. You (and all other higher life forms) got yours DIRECTLY from your mother as ALL of your cell's mitochondria developed from the ones that were in the egg cell that you "evolved" from. The fact that these bacteria live in a symbiotic relationship with your cells is fairly fortuitous since it is the Mitochondria which convert the energy in the food you eat into a form of energy your body can actually use.
And thus it is that even cells are actually "colonies" of even more simpler organisms.
Everything is magic if you don't know how it works.
Arthur
You'd have to have blind faith to believe in evolution, not Creation (designed through intelligence).
DNA is not overly complex.
DNA is simply a chemically linked chain of nucleotides, each of which consists of a sugar, a phosphate and one of four kinds of bases. These are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine, and guanine (G). They combine to form nucleotides but they will only pair up like this: A+T, T+A, C+G and G+C; They are interpreted in groups of three, meaning DNA has 64 different combinations. In a computer these would be thought of as the instruction set. Three sets of these pairs represent end markers and thus create individual groups of these 64 instructions. In a computer these would be thought of as a routine/method or function. And while the "program" for life forms is complex it is not as complex as any number of existing computer systems. It is clever however.
And so its obvious that it is not DNA per se that is complex, but the grouping of the nucleotide pairs is. None the less it is analagous to a sophisticated computer program and one that could easily be "written" in the time life has been on the earth.
The first "cells" would not be NEARLY as complex as the cells in your body but would have been more like a Virus, a simple protein sheath wrapped around a DNA's simpler cousin, RNA. RNA though has one property that is special, put in a mix of the right other chemicals and it will create a copy of itself. i.e. replicate. But this process is entirely chemical in nature and quite simple too boot.
Jumping ahead, the first bacteria are likewise much simpler than a cell and infact your bodies cells are all "infected" with some of these very primitive bacteria, known as Mitochondria. You (and all other higher life forms) got yours DIRECTLY from your mother as ALL of your cell's mitochondria developed from the ones that were in the egg cell that you "evolved" from. The fact that these bacteria live in a symbiotic relationship with your cells is fairly fortuitous since it is the Mitochondria which convert the energy in the food you eat into a form of energy your body can actually use.
And thus it is that even cells are actually "colonies" of even more simpler organisms.
Everything is magic if you don't know how it works.
Arthur
QUOTE (holyevolution+Aug 20 2005, 03:44 AM)
so what's the answer to the x-en and the egg riddle?all major changes are accidental ENHANCING mutations!?!all i can say is arn't we lucky!!luck is scientifically provable..right?
No, and this is a common fallicy.
Simple explanation.
Genes are inherited from both parents.
Genes are used to create specific proteins. The presense or absense of which cause target cells to perform specific functions. This results in the genes causing an effect on the organism called traits.
Traits, such as amount and location of body hair are goverened by more than one Gene.
Except for a small set of genes which are sex related you get a matching set of genes for a given trait from each parent.
The protein created by one gene might mask the effect (or negate) the effect of the gene from the other parent. In this case one gene is said to be dominant and the other recessive.
In the simplest terms you could get a dominant gene from both parents and thus exhibit the trait to the max. You could get one dominant gene and one recessive from either parents, but in this case the dominant trait is still expressed.
Only when you get a recessive gene from both parents is the recessive trait expressed.
Dominant genes represent the NORM and are therefor more common than recessive genes. But still recessive genes represent a staggering amount of generally unexpressed traits in a gene pool.
Now when the ENVIRONMENT changes however these recessive traits can suddenly become positive and thus be highly selected in the next generation. A few generations and the once recessive trait will predominate.
The organism changes but there are no mutations involved in the process.
Arthur
PS The egg obviously came first.
PPS Its helpful to remember that the adult of a specie is simply a babies way of creating more babies.
No, and this is a common fallicy.
Simple explanation.
Genes are inherited from both parents.
Genes are used to create specific proteins. The presense or absense of which cause target cells to perform specific functions. This results in the genes causing an effect on the organism called traits.
Traits, such as amount and location of body hair are goverened by more than one Gene.
Except for a small set of genes which are sex related you get a matching set of genes for a given trait from each parent.
The protein created by one gene might mask the effect (or negate) the effect of the gene from the other parent. In this case one gene is said to be dominant and the other recessive.
In the simplest terms you could get a dominant gene from both parents and thus exhibit the trait to the max. You could get one dominant gene and one recessive from either parents, but in this case the dominant trait is still expressed.
Only when you get a recessive gene from both parents is the recessive trait expressed.
Dominant genes represent the NORM and are therefor more common than recessive genes. But still recessive genes represent a staggering amount of generally unexpressed traits in a gene pool.
Now when the ENVIRONMENT changes however these recessive traits can suddenly become positive and thus be highly selected in the next generation. A few generations and the once recessive trait will predominate.
The organism changes but there are no mutations involved in the process.
Arthur
PS The egg obviously came first.
PPS Its helpful to remember that the adult of a specie is simply a babies way of creating more babies.
QUOTE (Steveo+Aug 19 2005, 08:26 PM)
Are you trying to say we are intelligent designers of domesticated animals? Or am I looking to much into this? LOL
On the same note, are we "Un"intelligent Designers of the drug resistant forms of bacteria and other diseases we have by our actions in trying to eradicate them?
Mikus
On the same note, are we "Un"intelligent Designers of the drug resistant forms of bacteria and other diseases we have by our actions in trying to eradicate them?
Mikus
QUOTE
Despite having seen a number of claims that there are "holes" in evolutionary theory, I recall only one which is, IMHO, easily discounted.
That one is that there are no transitional species in the fossil record. That is untrue. There is no reason to expect that all organic critters would leave fossil traces. There are few transitional fossil species, but they do exist.
The evolution of horses from the ancient eohippus species is well known although not many investigators have actually reported the complexity of coexistence sequences in that family.
That one is that there are no transitional species in the fossil record. That is untrue. There is no reason to expect that all organic critters would leave fossil traces. There are few transitional fossil species, but they do exist.
The evolution of horses from the ancient eohippus species is well known although not many investigators have actually reported the complexity of coexistence sequences in that family.
My view is that the ancient eohippus and the modern horse can be related in that they are all expressions of an originally running adaptable self-replicating genetic machine, with some genetic code dormant, and some genetic code active, giving it the best possibility by its INITIAL DESIGN to adapt over the millennia. My issue is going from goo to a horse. I believe it IS against the law of thermodynamics. I believe it IS statistically improbable, knowing that the random forces going into creating a protein sequence are equal to the random forces going into destroying a protein sequence, let alone the atoms randomly coming together to form the protein sequence, under ideal conditions.
The bridge between evolution and intellegent design for life lies within the hydrogen proton. All configurations within cells define their shapes and properties because of hydrogen bonding (weak secondary bonding force of the hydrogen proton). The DNA double helix and template relationships would mean nothing without hydrogen bonding.,
If one analyzes the materials in cell, the brain of the cell, or the DNA plus packing proteins, defines the highest potential materials with respect to the hydrogen bonding. The outside of the cell membrane is right up there but it is due to it is due to a dynamic cation flux configuration that is not fixed with respect to the cations. Evolution has simply moved in the direction of increasing hydrogen bonding potential. Mutations can come in handy but progressive mutations are always moving toward higher potential.
In multicellular animals, the DNA is the same in each cell, its various packing structures allow the DNA to define a spectrum of differentiations for all the various cell potentials within a multicellular organism. The neurons have the highest potential of all these differentiations. The brain continues this progression in increasing proton potential, i.e., the brain is rhe sum of all the dynamics externior membranes of neurons, with the larger brains of humans at the highest potential. This potential increases with age. The neuron numbers stay the same but the dynamic membrane surface areas increases with branching.
If one analyzes the materials in cell, the brain of the cell, or the DNA plus packing proteins, defines the highest potential materials with respect to the hydrogen bonding. The outside of the cell membrane is right up there but it is due to it is due to a dynamic cation flux configuration that is not fixed with respect to the cations. Evolution has simply moved in the direction of increasing hydrogen bonding potential. Mutations can come in handy but progressive mutations are always moving toward higher potential.
In multicellular animals, the DNA is the same in each cell, its various packing structures allow the DNA to define a spectrum of differentiations for all the various cell potentials within a multicellular organism. The neurons have the highest potential of all these differentiations. The brain continues this progression in increasing proton potential, i.e., the brain is rhe sum of all the dynamics externior membranes of neurons, with the larger brains of humans at the highest potential. This potential increases with age. The neuron numbers stay the same but the dynamic membrane surface areas increases with branching.
QUOTE (dCalvin+Aug 20 2005, 04:38 PM)
My issue is going from goo to a horse. I believe it IS against the law of thermodynamics. I believe it IS improbable, knowing that the random forces going into creating a protein sequence are equal to the random forces going into destroying a protein sequence.
No laws of thermodynamics are violated in the process we call life.
And while your random argument has some merit, remember that one CAN flip a coin and have it come up heads 50 times in a row (see Rozencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead), sure it doesn't happen often, but it does happen and thus a fortuitous set of circumstances can be postulated that allowed a replicating molecule e.g. RNA to be created "accidentally" even if it represents the biological equivilent to "50 heads in a row" and took possibly a billion years to finally "happen".
Life requires a constant supply of energy in order to maintain this higher level of structure. Creation of proteins requires energy and it is the rest of the organisms job to provide that energy. Upon death, with no energy input to maintain this higher structure, the proteins revert back to ever simpler (and lower energy) states.
Arthur
dCalvin referred to "the law of thermodynamics". There is no "the law"; there are four ranging from zeroth through third. I would assume that you assumed the second law, that of entropy, in your passing citation.
Most citations of the third law are erroneous, assuming that entropy must always increase. In fact, that is true only for a closed, isolated system; very hard to find in reality.
When entropy is passing through a system, very interesting things happen. Order can be created out of chaos!
The late Professor Ilya Prigogine won a Nobel Prize in 1977 for his work on systems far from equilibrium. I have a book at my side entitled "Order Out of Chaos", Bzntom Books, 1984, ISBM 0-553-34082-4, by Prof. Prigogine. You might consider looking into it for some concepts which you probably haven't been exposed to.
I have seen no exposition of the supposed many holes in the theory of evolution yet.
Most citations of the third law are erroneous, assuming that entropy must always increase. In fact, that is true only for a closed, isolated system; very hard to find in reality.
When entropy is passing through a system, very interesting things happen. Order can be created out of chaos!
The late Professor Ilya Prigogine won a Nobel Prize in 1977 for his work on systems far from equilibrium. I have a book at my side entitled "Order Out of Chaos", Bzntom Books, 1984, ISBM 0-553-34082-4, by Prof. Prigogine. You might consider looking into it for some concepts which you probably haven't been exposed to.
I have seen no exposition of the supposed many holes in the theory of evolution yet.
QUOTE
And so its obvious that it is not DNA per se that is complex, but the grouping of the nucleotide pairs is. None the less it is analagous to a sophisticated computer program and one that could easily be "written" in the time life has been on the earth.
Yes, DNA is super complex, to say that it is not is absurd. What tells a computer program to be a program? If it was just a bunch of words, it would be meaningless. The very fact that a programmer arranges each word (even if ONE is mispelled or misplaced, it has serrious consequences). What told DNA to be sequenced and the sequences to follow? etc. etc.
By the way, Creationism (or Intelligent Design) explains the existence of the universe, evolution doesn't. Where did it all come from? Where did it all start?
y4r
QUOTE (yeshua4real+Aug 21 2005, 06:29 AM)
QUOTE
And so its obvious that it is not DNA per se that is complex, but the grouping of the nucleotide pairs is. None the less it is analagous to a sophisticated computer program and one that could easily be "written" in the time life has been on the earth.
Yes, DNA is super complex, to say that it is not is absurd. What tells a computer program to be a program? If it was just a bunch of words, it would be meaningless. The very fact that a programmer arranges each word (even if ONE is mispelled or misplaced, it has serrious consequences). What told DNA to be sequenced and the sequences to follow? etc. etc.
By the way, Creationism (or Intelligent Design) explains the existence of the universe, evolution doesn't. Where did it all come from? Where did it all start?
y4r
Reread my post please.
DNA represents essentially 6 chemicals with the base pairs arranged in 4 different ways. They are then interpreted in groups of 3 pairs resulting in 64 different combinations.
The computer I program has many more machine level instructions than that.
So I repeat, DNA per se, is NOT complex.
Now as I said the grouping of the pairs, i.e. the STRANDS of DNA we call Chromosomes are incredibly long sequences of these 64 different instructions which is analagous to a computer program and that is complex, but even that is composed of a lower level of grouping of what would be analagous to "sub programs", eg Genes and genes are composed of what would be analagous to a number of "routines".
What tells a computer program to be a program? I don't know, I program therefore I am?
As to your analogy about "if one is mispelled or misplaced....", is in reality not true. We ship systems after they have been rigourously tested to our first "beta" customer, who likewise tests the system under real world conditions. After that it is made generally available at which point we start fixing the MANY small problems encountered by new users. It is essentially an endless process and while the system works very well (well enough that companies pay us MILLIONS for these systems) they have a great many "misspelled or misplaced" instructions in them. We label them Sev 1 thru Sev 4 with Sev 1 being analoguous to Death. Sev 2 to crippled, Sev 3 to injured but still mobile and Sev 4 to a bug bite. Almost all of the reported errors are Sev 3 or 4s, occasional Sev 2s and only rarely a Sev 1.
DNA is in general even MORE forgiving as errors are made quite often during cellular division. A number are drastic and/or fatal, but many more cause little or no impact at all.
Arthur
QUOTE (yeshua4real+Aug 21 2005, 06:29 AM)
QUOTE
And so its obvious that it is not DNA per se that is complex, but the grouping of the nucleotide pairs is. None the less it is analagous to a sophisticated computer program and one that could easily be "written" in the time life has been on the earth.
Yes, DNA is super complex, to say that it is not is absurd. What tells a computer program to be a program? If it was just a bunch of words, it would be meaningless. The very fact that a programmer arranges each word (even if ONE is mispelled or misplaced, it has serrious consequences). What told DNA to be sequenced and the sequences to follow? etc. etc.
By the way, Creationism (or Intelligent Design) explains the existence of the universe, evolution doesn't. Where did it all come from? Where did it all start?
y4r
yeshua4real said:
"By the way, Creationism (or Intelligent Design) explains the existence of the universe, evolution doesn't. Where did it all come from? Where did it all start?"
Evolution has never claimed to deal with how life or the universe started. It deals only with how life has changed since it got started.
If you want to see what one scientist has to say about the other stuff, try "Origins of Existence: How Life Emerged in the Universe" by Professor Fred Adams, The Free Press, 2002, ISBN 0-7432-1262-2.
yeshua4real also said:
"Yes, DNA is super complex, to say that it is not is absurd. What tells a computer program to be a program? If it was just a bunch of words, it would be meaningless. The very fact that a programmer arranges each word (even if ONE is mispelled or misplaced, it has serrious consequences). What told DNA to be sequenced and the sequences to follow? etc. etc."
DNA is NOT complex; it is what can be encoded by DNA that is complex. RNA and DNA can be produced without ID intervention; RNA is particularly good at being created naturally. Nothing has to "tell" DNA or RNA what to do. It is the nature of our universe that they do what they do. How new "programs" or "scripts" get produced is a primary topic of evolution.
When deep time is available for things to happen, even low probability happenings will occur. Random collisions or not, when carbon atoms collide with hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other elements, molecular forms are highly probable to result.
QUOTE (yeshua4real+Aug 21 2005, 06:29 AM)
By the way, Creationism (or Intelligent Design) explains the existence of the universe, evolution doesn't. Where did it all come from? Where did it all start?
Why is it that it had to 'start'? Could it have simply always been? Like, base law of physics: conservation. Matter can't be created, it can't be destroyed. So maybe the matter that exists within our universe has always been there. Just another way to look at it...
Why is it that it had to 'start'? Could it have simply always been? Like, base law of physics: conservation. Matter can't be created, it can't be destroyed. So maybe the matter that exists within our universe has always been there. Just another way to look at it...
My original point is the super-complexity of DNA--the FULL program NOT the individual letters that make it up. In a ultra-simple comparison, it's like taking the most complicated literary works and saying they're simple because it's all made from few letters of the alphabet. Those words were carefully chosen to make full sentences, paragraphs, chapters and a complete work. It took intelligence to do that.
This article explains it a little better than I can:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/dna.asp
An excerpt:
"God’s information technology
One aspect of this sustenance is that God has programmed the ‘recipe’ for all these structures on the famous double-helix molecule DNA.1 This recipe has an enormous information content, which is transmitted one generation to the next, so that living things reproduce ‘after their kinds’ (Genesis 1, 10 times). Leading atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits:
‘[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.’2
Just as the Britannica had intelligent writers to produce its information, so it is reasonable and even scientific to believe that the information in the living world likewise had an original compositor/sender.3 There is no known non-intelligent cause that has ever been observed to generate even a small portion of the literally encyclopedic information required for life.
The genetic code (see ‘The programs of life’ below) is not an outcome of raw chemistry, but of elaborate decoding machinery in the ribosome. Remarkably, this decoding machinery is itself encoded in the DNA, and the noted philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper pointed out:
‘Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.’5,6
So, such a system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity. This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes.
DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life,’ for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)
The amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead’s volume of DNA is equivalent to a pile of paperback books 500 times as high as the distance from Earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content.8 Putting it another way, while we think that our new 40 gigabyte hard drives are advanced technology, a pinhead of DNA could hold 100 million times more information."
y4r
Here are some other resources to check out:
http://www.discovery.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
http://www.creationresearch.org/
The unity of life
Many evolutionists claim that the DNA code is universal, and that this is proof of a common ancestor. But this is false—there are exceptions, some known since the 1970s. An example is Paramecium, where a few of the 64 (43 or 4x4x4) possible codons code for different amino acids. More examples are being found constantly.1 Also, some organisms code for one or two extra amino acids beyond the main 20 types.2 But if one organism evolved into another with a different code, all the messages already encoded would be scrambled, just as written messages would be jumbled if typewriter keys were switched. This is a huge problem for the evolution of one code into another.
Also, in our cells we have ‘power plants’ called mitochondria, with their own genes. It turns out that they have a slightly different genetic code, too.
Certainly most of the code is universal, but this is best explained by common design—one Creator. Of all the millions of genetic codes possible, ours, or something almost like it, is optimal for protecting against errors.3 But the created exceptions thwart attempts to explain the organisms by common-ancestry evolution.
References and notes
The genetic codes, National Institutes of Health, 29 August 2002. Return to text.
Certain Archaea and eubacteria code for 21st or 22nd amino acids, selenocysteine and pyrrolysine—see Atkins, J.F. and Gesteland, R., The 22nd amino acid, Science 296(5572):1409–10, 24 May 2002; commentary on technical papers on pp. 1459–62 and 1462–66. Return to text.
Knight, J., Top translator, New Scientist 158(2130):15, 18 April 1998. Natural selection cannot explain this code optimality, since there is no way to replace the first functional code with a ‘better’ one without destroying functionality. Return to text.
This article explains it a little better than I can:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/dna.asp
An excerpt:
"God’s information technology
One aspect of this sustenance is that God has programmed the ‘recipe’ for all these structures on the famous double-helix molecule DNA.1 This recipe has an enormous information content, which is transmitted one generation to the next, so that living things reproduce ‘after their kinds’ (Genesis 1, 10 times). Leading atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits:
‘[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.’2
Just as the Britannica had intelligent writers to produce its information, so it is reasonable and even scientific to believe that the information in the living world likewise had an original compositor/sender.3 There is no known non-intelligent cause that has ever been observed to generate even a small portion of the literally encyclopedic information required for life.
The genetic code (see ‘The programs of life’ below) is not an outcome of raw chemistry, but of elaborate decoding machinery in the ribosome. Remarkably, this decoding machinery is itself encoded in the DNA, and the noted philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper pointed out:
‘Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.’5,6
So, such a system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity. This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes.
DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life,’ for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)
The amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead’s volume of DNA is equivalent to a pile of paperback books 500 times as high as the distance from Earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content.8 Putting it another way, while we think that our new 40 gigabyte hard drives are advanced technology, a pinhead of DNA could hold 100 million times more information."
y4r
Here are some other resources to check out:
http://www.discovery.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
http://www.creationresearch.org/
The unity of life
Many evolutionists claim that the DNA code is universal, and that this is proof of a common ancestor. But this is false—there are exceptions, some known since the 1970s. An example is Paramecium, where a few of the 64 (43 or 4x4x4) possible codons code for different amino acids. More examples are being found constantly.1 Also, some organisms code for one or two extra amino acids beyond the main 20 types.2 But if one organism evolved into another with a different code, all the messages already encoded would be scrambled, just as written messages would be jumbled if typewriter keys were switched. This is a huge problem for the evolution of one code into another.
Also, in our cells we have ‘power plants’ called mitochondria, with their own genes. It turns out that they have a slightly different genetic code, too.
Certainly most of the code is universal, but this is best explained by common design—one Creator. Of all the millions of genetic codes possible, ours, or something almost like it, is optimal for protecting against errors.3 But the created exceptions thwart attempts to explain the organisms by common-ancestry evolution.
References and notes
The genetic codes, National Institutes of Health, 29 August 2002. Return to text.
Certain Archaea and eubacteria code for 21st or 22nd amino acids, selenocysteine and pyrrolysine—see Atkins, J.F. and Gesteland, R., The 22nd amino acid, Science 296(5572):1409–10, 24 May 2002; commentary on technical papers on pp. 1459–62 and 1462–66. Return to text.
Knight, J., Top translator, New Scientist 158(2130):15, 18 April 1998. Natural selection cannot explain this code optimality, since there is no way to replace the first functional code with a ‘better’ one without destroying functionality. Return to text.
The earth is ~4.6 billion years old. The oldest rocks date to only ~4 billion years because the earth's surface became molten early in its history. The oldest rocks are too metamorphosed by subsequent heat and pressure to preserve fossils.
The oldest rocks that we have found that contain cellular fossils are found in sediments dated to ~3.5 billion years old. They contain prokaryotic cells (bacteria and cyanophytes). These are not nearly as complex as you claim and the cells contain the much simpler construct, RNA not DNA. They have no nucleus and no organelles. They reproduce by splitting, are oxygen intolerant and probably evolved in or around sea vents which release steam and sulfide-rich gasses.
Eukaryotic cells (DNA and nucleus) don't show up in the fossil record for another 2 BILLION YEARS.
Now a Million years is a long time.
Several THOUSAND MILLION years is an extrodinary long time.
As far as possibilities for random occurances, just consider that the number of Escherichia coli cells in the intestines of just one human exceeds the number of humans that has ever lived on this planet.
So you take Billions of Billions of bacteria and allow for very slow change and then the movement to unicellular orgaisims is a reasonable postulation.
Arthur
The oldest rocks that we have found that contain cellular fossils are found in sediments dated to ~3.5 billion years old. They contain prokaryotic cells (bacteria and cyanophytes). These are not nearly as complex as you claim and the cells contain the much simpler construct, RNA not DNA. They have no nucleus and no organelles. They reproduce by splitting, are oxygen intolerant and probably evolved in or around sea vents which release steam and sulfide-rich gasses.
Eukaryotic cells (DNA and nucleus) don't show up in the fossil record for another 2 BILLION YEARS.
Now a Million years is a long time.
Several THOUSAND MILLION years is an extrodinary long time.
As far as possibilities for random occurances, just consider that the number of Escherichia coli cells in the intestines of just one human exceeds the number of humans that has ever lived on this planet.
So you take Billions of Billions of bacteria and allow for very slow change and then the movement to unicellular orgaisims is a reasonable postulation.
Arthur
Here we are at August 27 and still no description of the "holes in evolutionary theory".
I guess that I will have to start reading ID or Creationist literature.
I'm disappointed.
I guess that I will have to start reading ID or Creationist literature.
I'm disappointed.
sure, go ahead, read about ID and the bible and ask your priest too how Evolution works...(since there is none of that reading material on physorg.com, GOOD BYE)
Hi CactusCritter,
I found that reference I was speaking to you about....
RESURRECTING ANCIENT GENES: EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF EXTINCT MOLECULES
In this fashion there is probably very little in the ancient fossil record that could not be "synthetically" regressed at least from the gene point of view.
I hope this fills all those "holes" you were speaking of. It has not been completed yet but it seems that it will happen in the fullness of time.
Cheers
I found that reference I was speaking to you about....
RESURRECTING ANCIENT GENES: EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF EXTINCT MOLECULES
In this fashion there is probably very little in the ancient fossil record that could not be "synthetically" regressed at least from the gene point of view.
QUOTE
Abstract: There are few molecular fossils: with the rare exception of DNA fragments preserved in amber, ice or peat, no physical remnants preserve the intermediate forms that existed during the evolution of today’s genes. But ancient genes can now be reconstructed, expressed and functionally characterized, thanks to improved techniques for inferring and synthesizing ancestral sequences. This approach, known as ‘ancestral gene resurrection’, offers a powerful new way to empirically test hypotheses about the function of genes from the deep evolutionary past.
Joseph W. Thornton
Joseph W. Thornton
I hope this fills all those "holes" you were speaking of. It has not been completed yet but it seems that it will happen in the fullness of time.
Cheers
To All
I have come late to this discusion, Pardon me while I show my big ol' butt.
To y4r
A contemporary example of divergence of species is the horse and the ***. It is easy to see that these animals are almost identical yet, when interbred, the offspring is sterile. Evolutionary processes are working on them such that they will soon, in evolutionary terms, not be interfertile. They will have evolved into two different "kinds".
Self replication is not dependent on information stored in dna. Many chemical compounds will fall out of solution in the form of crystals. If your definition of life is the ability to replicate then quartz, diamond and salt crystals are a form of very simple life. Crick and Wilson deduced the double helix form of dna using x-ray photos of crystalized dna. It is not a large step for crystal-prone forms of primative protiens(built from amino acids, which have been found in molecular clouds between the stars), in the energetic, chemical rich environs of a hot spring or smoker, to start the processes of evolution by making billions of copies of itself within this primordial soup. Maybe, soon thereafter, one type of this self replicating protien found itself lodged inside a Buckey Ball, which allowed it to reach the other amino acids outside it's shell but protected it from predation. Behold, the first cell. Maybe soon after that it absorbed another type of protein which could "eat" proteins the original could not and instead of destroying it, lived together in symbiosis, voila, the first mitochondria. The information required to replicate the protein is inherent in it's chemistry. It is it's own "DNA' Keep adding energy(chemical and heat) and give it time(2or3 BILLION years) and shazzam, you have the origin of life on Earth. No intellegence required.
I have come late to this discusion, Pardon me while I show my big ol' butt.
To y4r
A contemporary example of divergence of species is the horse and the ***. It is easy to see that these animals are almost identical yet, when interbred, the offspring is sterile. Evolutionary processes are working on them such that they will soon, in evolutionary terms, not be interfertile. They will have evolved into two different "kinds".
Self replication is not dependent on information stored in dna. Many chemical compounds will fall out of solution in the form of crystals. If your definition of life is the ability to replicate then quartz, diamond and salt crystals are a form of very simple life. Crick and Wilson deduced the double helix form of dna using x-ray photos of crystalized dna. It is not a large step for crystal-prone forms of primative protiens(built from amino acids, which have been found in molecular clouds between the stars), in the energetic, chemical rich environs of a hot spring or smoker, to start the processes of evolution by making billions of copies of itself within this primordial soup. Maybe, soon thereafter, one type of this self replicating protien found itself lodged inside a Buckey Ball, which allowed it to reach the other amino acids outside it's shell but protected it from predation. Behold, the first cell. Maybe soon after that it absorbed another type of protein which could "eat" proteins the original could not and instead of destroying it, lived together in symbiosis, voila, the first mitochondria. The information required to replicate the protein is inherent in it's chemistry. It is it's own "DNA' Keep adding energy(chemical and heat) and give it time(2or3 BILLION years) and shazzam, you have the origin of life on Earth. No intellegence required.
IMESHO 
I guess that I will have to start reading ID or Creationist literature.
Hehe,,, to that end, be sure to, first, update your knowledge of current logical conjecture. Keep in mind that lifes' basic chemical precursors are everywhere in this universe, delivered in part or whole,,, stir fried, by your friendly neighborhood super novii~
...and, btw, all this in satisfaction of the one and only true universal law, energy dissipates
QUOTE (CactusCritter+Aug 28 2005, 06:25 AM)
I guess that I will have to start reading ID or Creationist literature.
Hehe,,, to that end, be sure to, first, update your knowledge of current logical conjecture. Keep in mind that lifes' basic chemical precursors are everywhere in this universe, delivered in part or whole,,, stir fried, by your friendly neighborhood super novii~
...and, btw, all this in satisfaction of the one and only true universal law, energy dissipates
In the previous post the name of an animal was starred out. The name meant the same as donkey which, when bred to a horse yealds a mule which is sterile. The word mule is often used to indicate offspring which is sterile. I meant no offense.
God is the Universe! God/Universe in its wisdom is trying every combination of its building blocks to see which ones work. So Creationism and Evolution are one and the same. Creationism just simplifies it, "God created everything don't worry about the details".
So, don't worry God is watching you in the vague general way it watches everything. Every individual knows as much and as little about Gods will as every other. Live your life, do what works for you.
So, don't worry God is watching you in the vague general way it watches everything. Every individual knows as much and as little about Gods will as every other. Live your life, do what works for you.
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 20 2005, 05:24 AM)
QUOTE (yeshua4real+Aug 20 2005, 04:00 AM)
I would say one of the biggest holes is the unbelievable complexity of DNA! With all the supercomputing power and human intellect that is tackling this area, we're only at the tip. Nature, with no intelligence, no sentience, could not have developed something this complex, no matter how long its given. Every organism has it. Even the simplest strand of DNA from the so called first cell would have been highly structured. It couldn't just magically appear. It takes myriad engineers--who are the top in their fields--to design the forefront of human inventions. Nothing humans have engineered even comes close to the simplest organism (or even a cell).
You'd have to have blind faith to believe in evolution, not Creation (designed through intelligence).
DNA is not overly complex.
DNA is simply a chemically linked chain of nucleotides, each of which consists of a sugar, a phosphate and one of four kinds of bases. These are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine, and guanine (G). They combine to form nucleotides but they will only pair up like this: A+T, T+A, C+G and G+C; They are interpreted in groups of three, meaning DNA has 64 different combinations. In a computer these would be thought of as the instruction set. Three sets of these pairs represent end markers and thus create individual groups of these 64 instructions. In a computer these would be thought of as a routine/method or function. And while the "program" for life forms is complex it is not as complex as any number of existing computer systems. It is clever however.
And so its obvious that it is not DNA per se that is complex, but the grouping of the nucleotide pairs is. None the less it is analagous to a sophisticated computer program and one that could easily be "written" in the time life has been on the earth.
The first "cells" would not be NEARLY as complex as the cells in your body but would have been more like a Virus, a simple protein sheath wrapped around a DNA's simpler cousin, RNA. RNA though has one property that is special, put in a mix of the right other chemicals and it will create a copy of itself. i.e. replicate. But this process is entirely chemical in nature and quite simple too boot.
Jumping ahead, the first bacteria are likewise much simpler than a cell and infact your bodies cells are all "infected" with some of these very primitive bacteria, known as Mitochondria. You (and all other higher life forms) got yours DIRECTLY from your mother as ALL of your cell's mitochondria developed from the ones that were in the egg cell that you "evolved" from. The fact that these bacteria live in a symbiotic relationship with your cells is fairly fortuitous since it is the Mitochondria which convert the energy in the food you eat into a form of energy your body can actually use.
And thus it is that even cells are actually "colonies" of even more simpler organisms.
Everything is magic if you don't know how it works.
Arthur
okay then, does evolution tell us what there was before DNA?
RNA was probaly the first type of genetic material. Some strains of RNA can self replicate. nucleotides can and do form by themselves as can several other nucleotides, thats why it would be no big deal to find simple organic material on Mars. nuceleotides can even link to each other by themselves. To make a long and boring story short, Dna is complicated in large beings but not in most bacteria and virus. I some bacteria that i can't remeber now has only 200 genes and about 0.5 million base pairs. an average virus has even less.
E. coli (a stomach bacteria for you non-biology guys) has been made from scratch by biologist so it could not be too complex. Dna just looks complicated till you study it, like a computer language.
as for holes in evolutionary theory, i don't think they taught me any in college (go mountianeers).
Quote by Gadfly: Why does the intelligent designer make so many mistakes?
If there were an intelligent designer, then one would expect perfection in a perfect world.
Yet, heaven [?] knows that the world is not perfect, succumbing to disease, war and other tragedies.
Such outcomes point to an unintelligent designer. Does this mean that there are two competing designers?
Or is just one designer sometimes intelligent and at other times unintelligent?
The biologic warfare among Archaea, Eubacteria and Eukaryota as well as viruses tends to favor nucleic acid development of protean attack and defense mechanisms. These phenomena appears to be well within the realm of evolution.
If the intelligent or unintelligent designer does not chose to intervene, especially in the case of disease, then man has a duty to his fellow man to intervene.
Please see a super long post coming up next - also by me. But first, I wanted to answer your questions quickly and directly.
Intelligent Designer = God in this exercise in futility.
God did create perfection. Rather than force people to love and obey Him - he gave us free will. He advised us that there are consequences to rejecting His love and disobeying Him. These are the natural consequences that a scientist could certainly relate to - no fire and brimstone here - just cause and effect. We decided we were smarter than God and disobeyed Him. This is when sin, death, disease, evil, and destruction entered our world.
In a way there is some competition going on - but it's rather one-sided. Lucifer, a fallen angel, aka Satan, was cast out by God - because he wanted to be God. The first sin was actually done by Satan when he caused Eve to believe him rather than God. Because sin had entered the world, and into the very nature of man through Adam & Eve's transgressions, then for God to destroy Satan, He would also have had to destroy the creation He loved. But God had a better way. A way of Redemption. Jesus Christ.
The Bible describes our origins as well as the end and a new beginning. Read Genesis (the first book of the Bible) and see if you don't agree that the Biblical account of creation is not similar to your own evolutionary theory of the order of creation.
Then read the book of Revelation (the last book of the Bible) and see how all this death and destruction is predicted (2000 years ago). See if you don't recognize major events going on right now that are described in detail in Revelation.
Your are correct in your statement that you have a duty to help your fellow man.
You are wrong when you say that God has not intervened.
God didn't make no junk when he made you. He knew you in your mother's womb when he knit you together, He created you. He did not destroy you when He had the chance because He loves you.
If you really desire to know the truth then you must conduct a personal experiment. It involves you reading the Bible and then asking God to show you that He is real. If you can reduce your emotions to science then you will be able to understand how to complete the experiment.
If you laugh, criticize, refuse to believe, and in general be a half-empty instead of half-full kind of person, then you lose, you fail.
Have a wonderful week,
SoLoved
You'd have to have blind faith to believe in evolution, not Creation (designed through intelligence).
DNA is not overly complex.
DNA is simply a chemically linked chain of nucleotides, each of which consists of a sugar, a phosphate and one of four kinds of bases. These are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine, and guanine (G). They combine to form nucleotides but they will only pair up like this: A+T, T+A, C+G and G+C; They are interpreted in groups of three, meaning DNA has 64 different combinations. In a computer these would be thought of as the instruction set. Three sets of these pairs represent end markers and thus create individual groups of these 64 instructions. In a computer these would be thought of as a routine/method or function. And while the "program" for life forms is complex it is not as complex as any number of existing computer systems. It is clever however.
And so its obvious that it is not DNA per se that is complex, but the grouping of the nucleotide pairs is. None the less it is analagous to a sophisticated computer program and one that could easily be "written" in the time life has been on the earth.
The first "cells" would not be NEARLY as complex as the cells in your body but would have been more like a Virus, a simple protein sheath wrapped around a DNA's simpler cousin, RNA. RNA though has one property that is special, put in a mix of the right other chemicals and it will create a copy of itself. i.e. replicate. But this process is entirely chemical in nature and quite simple too boot.
Jumping ahead, the first bacteria are likewise much simpler than a cell and infact your bodies cells are all "infected" with some of these very primitive bacteria, known as Mitochondria. You (and all other higher life forms) got yours DIRECTLY from your mother as ALL of your cell's mitochondria developed from the ones that were in the egg cell that you "evolved" from. The fact that these bacteria live in a symbiotic relationship with your cells is fairly fortuitous since it is the Mitochondria which convert the energy in the food you eat into a form of energy your body can actually use.
And thus it is that even cells are actually "colonies" of even more simpler organisms.
Everything is magic if you don't know how it works.
Arthur
okay then, does evolution tell us what there was before DNA?
QUOTE
I would say one of the biggest holes is the unbelievable complexity of DNA! With all the supercomputing power and human intellect that is tackling this area, we're only at the tip. Nature, with no intelligence, no sentience, could not have developed something this complex, no matter how long its given. Every organism has it. Even the simplest strand of DNA from the so called first cell would have been highly structured. It couldn't just magically appear. It takes myriad engineers--who are the top in their fields--to design the forefront of human inventions. Nothing humans have engineered even comes close to the simplest organism (or even a cell).
RNA was probaly the first type of genetic material. Some strains of RNA can self replicate. nucleotides can and do form by themselves as can several other nucleotides, thats why it would be no big deal to find simple organic material on Mars. nuceleotides can even link to each other by themselves. To make a long and boring story short, Dna is complicated in large beings but not in most bacteria and virus. I some bacteria that i can't remeber now has only 200 genes and about 0.5 million base pairs. an average virus has even less.
E. coli (a stomach bacteria for you non-biology guys) has been made from scratch by biologist so it could not be too complex. Dna just looks complicated till you study it, like a computer language.
as for holes in evolutionary theory, i don't think they taught me any in college (go mountianeers).
Why does the intelligent designer make so many mistakes?
If there were an intelligent designer, then one would expect perfection in a perfect world.
Yet, heaven [?] knows that the world is not perfect, succumbing to disease, war and other tragedies.
Such outcomes point to an unintelligent designer. Does this mean that there are two competing designers?
Or is just one designer sometimes intelligent and at other times unintelligent?
The biologic warfare among Archaea, Eubacteria and Eukaryota as well as viruses tends to favor nucleic acid development of protean attack and defense mechanisms. These phenomena appears to be well within the realm of evolution.
If the intelligent or unintelligent designer does not chose to intervene, especially in the case of disease, then man has a duty to his fellow man to intervene.
If there were an intelligent designer, then one would expect perfection in a perfect world.
Yet, heaven [?] knows that the world is not perfect, succumbing to disease, war and other tragedies.
Such outcomes point to an unintelligent designer. Does this mean that there are two competing designers?
Or is just one designer sometimes intelligent and at other times unintelligent?
The biologic warfare among Archaea, Eubacteria and Eukaryota as well as viruses tends to favor nucleic acid development of protean attack and defense mechanisms. These phenomena appears to be well within the realm of evolution.
If the intelligent or unintelligent designer does not chose to intervene, especially in the case of disease, then man has a duty to his fellow man to intervene.
QUOTE (bada+Aug 28 2005, 09:29 PM)
okay then, does evolution tell us what there was before DNA?
No. The Theory of Evolution tells us there was something before DNA, not what it was.
However the logical candidate is RNA
Much simpler
But with the ability to replicate
And the ability to synthesize proteins.
And the likelyhood of evolving into DNA, given time and the appropriate chemical mates.
Arthur
No. The Theory of Evolution tells us there was something before DNA, not what it was.
However the logical candidate is RNA
Much simpler
But with the ability to replicate
And the ability to synthesize proteins.
And the likelyhood of evolving into DNA, given time and the appropriate chemical mates.
Arthur
QUOTE
Quote by Gadfly: Why does the intelligent designer make so many mistakes?
If there were an intelligent designer, then one would expect perfection in a perfect world.
Yet, heaven [?] knows that the world is not perfect, succumbing to disease, war and other tragedies.
Such outcomes point to an unintelligent designer. Does this mean that there are two competing designers?
Or is just one designer sometimes intelligent and at other times unintelligent?
The biologic warfare among Archaea, Eubacteria and Eukaryota as well as viruses tends to favor nucleic acid development of protean attack and defense mechanisms. These phenomena appears to be well within the realm of evolution.
If the intelligent or unintelligent designer does not chose to intervene, especially in the case of disease, then man has a duty to his fellow man to intervene.
Please see a super long post coming up next - also by me. But first, I wanted to answer your questions quickly and directly.
Intelligent Designer = God in this exercise in futility.
God did create perfection. Rather than force people to love and obey Him - he gave us free will. He advised us that there are consequences to rejecting His love and disobeying Him. These are the natural consequences that a scientist could certainly relate to - no fire and brimstone here - just cause and effect. We decided we were smarter than God and disobeyed Him. This is when sin, death, disease, evil, and destruction entered our world.
In a way there is some competition going on - but it's rather one-sided. Lucifer, a fallen angel, aka Satan, was cast out by God - because he wanted to be God. The first sin was actually done by Satan when he caused Eve to believe him rather than God. Because sin had entered the world, and into the very nature of man through Adam & Eve's transgressions, then for God to destroy Satan, He would also have had to destroy the creation He loved. But God had a better way. A way of Redemption. Jesus Christ.
The Bible describes our origins as well as the end and a new beginning. Read Genesis (the first book of the Bible) and see if you don't agree that the Biblical account of creation is not similar to your own evolutionary theory of the order of creation.
Then read the book of Revelation (the last book of the Bible) and see how all this death and destruction is predicted (2000 years ago). See if you don't recognize major events going on right now that are described in detail in Revelation.
Your are correct in your statement that you have a duty to help your fellow man.
You are wrong when you say that God has not intervened.
God didn't make no junk when he made you. He knew you in your mother's womb when he knit you together, He created you. He did not destroy you when He had the chance because He loves you.
If you really desire to know the truth then you must conduct a personal experiment. It involves you reading the Bible and then asking God to show you that He is real. If you can reduce your emotions to science then you will be able to understand how to complete the experiment.
If you laugh, criticize, refuse to believe, and in general be a half-empty instead of half-full kind of person, then you lose, you fail.
Have a wonderful week,
SoLoved
So where are the holes in evolution? Right off the top of my head.....
1. Inability to prove that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.
2. The evolution theory goes against real science by believing that information can arise from disorder by chance.
3. Inability to explain what time is, and therefore, being unable to fathom an Intelligent Designer with no beginning.
4. Inability to accept any other pre-suppositions than their own - such as in the beginning God.... - this puts the whole evolution theory at risk because you break your own rules, which are to consider all the evidence, not just the regurgitated information from a couple hundred years ago.
5. The evolutionist believes we are nothing but animals, an accident of cosmic evolution, with no purpose.
6. Darwin was not the first person to talk about evolution.
7. Evolution is contrary to the word of God. I realize that many of you could care less, nevertheless, this is a fact.
8. Your own community's pro-Darwin biography even tells what a liar and manipulator Darwin could be:
Darwin was known to invent deliberate falsehoods and this became a regular method of seeking the spotlight …
Darwin would do anything at school “for the pure pleasure of exciting attention and surprise.”
(Biography of "Darwin", published by Michael Joseph, London, 1991.
9. While we're on the subject of Darwin, can you tell me - were his father and grandfather anti-Christian? Was the family religion devoted to evolution? I thought Darwin 'stumbled' upon his theory while on a voyage? Also, did a fellow named Erasmus discuss evolution before or after Darwin?
10. Does evolution teach that women are inferior to men and that natural selection seems to favor men? I'm sure your new presidential hopeful Hillary would love to know this little tidbit of information.
11. Evolution does not fill the hole in you.
By using a different pre-supposition - specifically that by definition, an infinite, eternal being has always existed, no one created God (the Designer);
you will factually prove to yourself that there is indeed a Designer, Creator, God.
He is the self-existing one. He is outside of time—in fact, He created time.
Many will shout about intelligent design being a back door to religion. It really, seriously, honestly, has nothing to do with that.
Teaching intelligent design alongside evolution will get people to think and experiment. Who knows, it may work in your favor. I seriously
doubt it, but the point is that you cannot force your belief system down our unwilling throats. These are our children that you are trying
to force feed - not your own (the poor things). It does not advocate religion any more than evolution advocates changing us back into your
pre-supposed ancestoral ape like being. We respect a parents right to teach their children about the origins of life, about God, and even
about evolution. Technically, evolution should never be taught in public schools, it is simply not true, factual, real, or even advantageous!
I realize that you don't like to get all philosophical and touchy feely here. But what the scientist must understand is that we are more than
chemicals. We are living, breathing, human beings that feel and touch, we love, we laugh, we cry, we are emotional. This is something that can be analyzed but for some reason the scientist thinks cannot be analyzed. The scientist who reduces himself to nothing but a chemical reaction is short changing himself.
See next post on a different subject - coming up next.
Have a great week,
SoLoved
1. Inability to prove that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.
2. The evolution theory goes against real science by believing that information can arise from disorder by chance.
3. Inability to explain what time is, and therefore, being unable to fathom an Intelligent Designer with no beginning.
4. Inability to accept any other pre-suppositions than their own - such as in the beginning God.... - this puts the whole evolution theory at risk because you break your own rules, which are to consider all the evidence, not just the regurgitated information from a couple hundred years ago.
5. The evolutionist believes we are nothing but animals, an accident of cosmic evolution, with no purpose.
6. Darwin was not the first person to talk about evolution.
7. Evolution is contrary to the word of God. I realize that many of you could care less, nevertheless, this is a fact.
8. Your own community's pro-Darwin biography even tells what a liar and manipulator Darwin could be:
Darwin was known to invent deliberate falsehoods and this became a regular method of seeking the spotlight …
Darwin would do anything at school “for the pure pleasure of exciting attention and surprise.”
(Biography of "Darwin", published by Michael Joseph, London, 1991.
9. While we're on the subject of Darwin, can you tell me - were his father and grandfather anti-Christian? Was the family religion devoted to evolution? I thought Darwin 'stumbled' upon his theory while on a voyage? Also, did a fellow named Erasmus discuss evolution before or after Darwin?
10. Does evolution teach that women are inferior to men and that natural selection seems to favor men? I'm sure your new presidential hopeful Hillary would love to know this little tidbit of information.
11. Evolution does not fill the hole in you.
By using a different pre-supposition - specifically that by definition, an infinite, eternal being has always existed, no one created God (the Designer);
you will factually prove to yourself that there is indeed a Designer, Creator, God.
He is the self-existing one. He is outside of time—in fact, He created time.
Many will shout about intelligent design being a back door to religion. It really, seriously, honestly, has nothing to do with that.
Teaching intelligent design alongside evolution will get people to think and experiment. Who knows, it may work in your favor. I seriously
doubt it, but the point is that you cannot force your belief system down our unwilling throats. These are our children that you are trying
to force feed - not your own (the poor things). It does not advocate religion any more than evolution advocates changing us back into your
pre-supposed ancestoral ape like being. We respect a parents right to teach their children about the origins of life, about God, and even
about evolution. Technically, evolution should never be taught in public schools, it is simply not true, factual, real, or even advantageous!
I realize that you don't like to get all philosophical and touchy feely here. But what the scientist must understand is that we are more than
chemicals. We are living, breathing, human beings that feel and touch, we love, we laugh, we cry, we are emotional. This is something that can be analyzed but for some reason the scientist thinks cannot be analyzed. The scientist who reduces himself to nothing but a chemical reaction is short changing himself.
See next post on a different subject - coming up next.
Have a great week,
SoLoved
Other posts in this forum (see other topics) have challenged you all to conduct your own personal experiment and get to know the God of the Bible.
I'm going to help you along by telling you about an interesting sermon. I hope you can follow along - it's a bit involved.
This sermon was conducted by a Christian Missionary & Alliance Church Pastor on 8/28/05.
It is titled "The Supremacy of Christ". Truth is reality - truth is realized through Jesus Christ.
1. Start by reading Exodus 27:16 (old testament - for those who do not know this - the entire old testament is a testament to Jesus Christ - in other words - there is a story running through the old testament that when read in the light of the new testament - reveals Jesus Christ. For example - when God says in Genesis that the serpent shall strike your heel but you shall crush his head - he is talking about his son, Jesus Christ - this is in reference to Jesus dying on the cross (struck his heel) and then Jesus' victorious resurrection from the dead (crush his head)).
I hope you can follow this.
"The entrance of the enclosure shall be covered with a 20 cubit embroidered drape made of sky-blue, dark red, and crimson wool together with twisted linen. It shall have 4 pillars and 4 bases." (Exodus 27:16)
2. Then read Second Timothy 3:16 (This is to point out why we are studying Exodus 27:16)
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16)
3. Exodus 27:16 describes in great detail how the tabernacle where God said He would dwell with His people, was to be built.
There were 12 tribes of Israel (compare - Jesus had 12 disciples), but only one entrance to the tabernacle (symbolizes only one way to God - compare -
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6).
4. Why are the colors important? Colors were used to represent certain things:
Blue = represents the divine God
Red = servant, sacrifice
White = perfect humanity, purity, victory
Purple = King, Sovreignity
In the old testament:
When the tabernacle was complete there was only one entrance - all 12 tribes would go through the one way to be with God
When they saw the blue they would think of God
When they saw the red they would think of the animal sacrifice for their sins
When they saw the white they would remember that they were purified by the death of their animal sacrifice
When they saw purple this signified God's sovreignity
In the new testament:
Blue = When the resurrection was complete - there was made a way (the blue in the tabernacle entrance = Jesus) for all people to be with God.
Red = The red blood of Jesus provided the final, ultimate sacrifice for all of our sins.
White = Jesus is perfect humanity, pure and victorious.
Purple = Jesus the Christ is the Sovreign Lord, King, Supreme.
5. This wraps up the Supremacy of Christ. Colossians 1:15-20
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions
or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
He is the head of the body, the church.
He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent.
For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell,
and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross (through him),
whether those on earth or those in heaven. (Colossians 1:15-20)
6. Did you know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were all written using these representations? In other words,
each of the four gospels tells about Jesus using blue, red, white, and purple.
Matthew: Christ as King (blue)
Mark: Christ as Servant (red)
Luke: Christ as Man (white)
John: Christ as the Sovreign God (purple) (answers the question: Is Jesus Christ really the Son of God?)
7. Why four portraits (gospels) of Jesus? Jews needed to know Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies of Messiah/King.
Gentiles needed some Jewish cultural concepts explained. More importantly: we need a full picture of Jesus.
A Christian is more than a Bible thumper, viewing our many facets helps you better understand us.
Similarly, Jesus’ many facets — His heart, words, life, and mission — are all necessary to appreciating His true nature.
We must see Jesus as King (Matthew), the servant (Mark), like us - as man (Luke), and as sovreign God (John).
The moral of the story:
God didn't make no junk when he made you. He knew you in your mother's womb when he knit you together, He created you. He did not destroy you when He had the chance because He loves you.
If you really desire to know the truth then you must conduct a personal experiment. It involves you reading the Bible and then asking God to show you that He is real. If you can reduce your emotions to science then you will be able to understand how to complete the experiment.
If you laugh, criticize, refuse to believe, and in general be a half-empty instead of half-full kind of person, then you lose, you fail.
Now, when we're talking about the perfect man - we're not talking about this man:
The perfect Gingerbread man -
cute, sweet and quiet, and if he annoys me I can bite his head off!
No, when we're talking about the perfect man - we're talking about this guy:
Are
you
ready
to
see
the
perfect
man
for
the
job?
Just kidding. Well, sort of.
Have a great week,
SoLoved
I'm going to help you along by telling you about an interesting sermon. I hope you can follow along - it's a bit involved.
This sermon was conducted by a Christian Missionary & Alliance Church Pastor on 8/28/05.
It is titled "The Supremacy of Christ". Truth is reality - truth is realized through Jesus Christ.
1. Start by reading Exodus 27:16 (old testament - for those who do not know this - the entire old testament is a testament to Jesus Christ - in other words - there is a story running through the old testament that when read in the light of the new testament - reveals Jesus Christ. For example - when God says in Genesis that the serpent shall strike your heel but you shall crush his head - he is talking about his son, Jesus Christ - this is in reference to Jesus dying on the cross (struck his heel) and then Jesus' victorious resurrection from the dead (crush his head)).
I hope you can follow this.
"The entrance of the enclosure shall be covered with a 20 cubit embroidered drape made of sky-blue, dark red, and crimson wool together with twisted linen. It shall have 4 pillars and 4 bases." (Exodus 27:16)
2. Then read Second Timothy 3:16 (This is to point out why we are studying Exodus 27:16)
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16)
3. Exodus 27:16 describes in great detail how the tabernacle where God said He would dwell with His people, was to be built.
There were 12 tribes of Israel (compare - Jesus had 12 disciples), but only one entrance to the tabernacle (symbolizes only one way to God - compare -
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6).
4. Why are the colors important? Colors were used to represent certain things:
Blue = represents the divine God
Red = servant, sacrifice
White = perfect humanity, purity, victory
Purple = King, Sovreignity
In the old testament:
When the tabernacle was complete there was only one entrance - all 12 tribes would go through the one way to be with God
When they saw the blue they would think of God
When they saw the red they would think of the animal sacrifice for their sins
When they saw the white they would remember that they were purified by the death of their animal sacrifice
When they saw purple this signified God's sovreignity
In the new testament:
Blue = When the resurrection was complete - there was made a way (the blue in the tabernacle entrance = Jesus) for all people to be with God.
Red = The red blood of Jesus provided the final, ultimate sacrifice for all of our sins.
White = Jesus is perfect humanity, pure and victorious.
Purple = Jesus the Christ is the Sovreign Lord, King, Supreme.
5. This wraps up the Supremacy of Christ. Colossians 1:15-20
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions
or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
He is the head of the body, the church.
He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent.
For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell,
and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross (through him),
whether those on earth or those in heaven. (Colossians 1:15-20)
6. Did you know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were all written using these representations? In other words,
each of the four gospels tells about Jesus using blue, red, white, and purple.
Matthew: Christ as King (blue)
Mark: Christ as Servant (red)
Luke: Christ as Man (white)
John: Christ as the Sovreign God (purple) (answers the question: Is Jesus Christ really the Son of God?)
7. Why four portraits (gospels) of Jesus? Jews needed to know Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies of Messiah/King.
Gentiles needed some Jewish cultural concepts explained. More importantly: we need a full picture of Jesus.
A Christian is more than a Bible thumper, viewing our many facets helps you better understand us.
Similarly, Jesus’ many facets — His heart, words, life, and mission — are all necessary to appreciating His true nature.
We must see Jesus as King (Matthew), the servant (Mark), like us - as man (Luke), and as sovreign God (John).
The moral of the story:
God didn't make no junk when he made you. He knew you in your mother's womb when he knit you together, He created you. He did not destroy you when He had the chance because He loves you.
If you really desire to know the truth then you must conduct a personal experiment. It involves you reading the Bible and then asking God to show you that He is real. If you can reduce your emotions to science then you will be able to understand how to complete the experiment.
If you laugh, criticize, refuse to believe, and in general be a half-empty instead of half-full kind of person, then you lose, you fail.
Now, when we're talking about the perfect man - we're not talking about this man: The perfect Gingerbread man - cute, sweet and quiet, and if he annoys me I can bite his head off!
No, when we're talking about the perfect man - we're talking about this guy:
Are
you
ready
to
see
the
perfect
man
for
the
job?
Just kidding. Well, sort of.
Have a great week,
SoLoved
Other posts in this forum (see other topics) have challenged you all to conduct your own personal experiment and get to know the God of the Bible.
I'm going to help you along by telling you about an interesting sermon. I hope you can follow along - it's a bit involved.
This sermon was conducted by a Christian Missionary & Alliance Church Pastor on 8/28/05.
It is titled "The Supremacy of Christ". Truth is reality - truth is realized through Jesus Christ.
1. Start by reading Exodus 27:16 (old testament - for those who do not know this - the entire old testament is a testament to Jesus Christ - in other words - there is a story running through the old testament that when read in the light of the new testament - reveals Jesus Christ. For example - when God says in Genesis that the serpent shall strike your heel but you shall crush his head - he is talking about his son, Jesus Christ - this is in reference to Jesus dying on the cross (struck his heel) and then Jesus' victorious resurrection from the dead (crush his head)).
I hope you can follow this.
"The entrance of the enclosure shall be covered with a 20 cubit embroidered drape made of sky-blue, dark red, and crimson wool together with twisted linen. It shall have 4 pillars and 4 bases." (Exodus 27:16)
2. Then read Second Timothy 3:16 (This is to point out why we are studying Exodus 27:16)
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16)
3. Exodus 27:16 describes in great detail how the tabernacle where God said He would dwell with His people, was to be built.
There were 12 tribes of Israel (compare - Jesus had 12 disciples), but only one entrance to the tabernacle (symbolizes only one way to God - compare -
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6).
4. Why are the colors important? Colors were used to represent certain things:
Blue = represents the divine God
Red = servant, sacrifice
White = perfect humanity, purity, victory
Purple = King, Sovreignity
In the old testament:
When the tabernacle was complete there was only one entrance - all 12 tribes would go through the one way to be with God
When they saw the blue they would think of God
When they saw the red they would think of the animal sacrifice for their sins
When they saw the white they would remember that they were purified by the death of their animal sacrifice
When they saw purple this signified God's sovreignity
In the new testament:
Blue = When the resurrection was complete - there was made a way (the blue in the tabernacle entrance = Jesus) for all people to be with God.
Red = The red blood of Jesus provided the final, ultimate sacrifice for all of our sins.
White = Jesus is perfect humanity, pure and victorious.
Purple = Jesus the Christ is the Sovreign Lord, King, Supreme.
5. This wraps up the Supremacy of Christ. Colossians 1:15-20
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions
or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
He is the head of the body, the church.
He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent.
For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell,
and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross (through him),
whether those on earth or those in heaven. (Colossians 1:15-20)
6. Did you know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were all written using these representations? In other words,
each of the four gospels tells about Jesus using blue, red, white, and purple.
Matthew: Christ as King (blue)
Mark: Christ as Servant (red)
Luke: Christ as Man (white)
John: Christ as the Sovreign God (purple) (answers the question: Is Jesus Christ really the Son of God?)
7. Why four portraits (gospels) of Jesus? Jews needed to know Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies of Messiah/King.
Gentiles needed some Jewish cultural concepts explained. More importantly: we need a full picture of Jesus.
A Christian is more than a Bible thumper, viewing our many facets helps you better understand us.
Similarly, Jesus’ many facets — His heart, words, life, and mission — are all necessary to appreciating His true nature.
We must see Jesus as King (Matthew), the servant (Mark), like us - as man (Luke), and as sovreign God (John).
The moral of the story:
God didn't make no junk when he made you. He knew you in your mother's womb when he knit you together, He created you. He did not destroy you when He had the chance because He loves you.
If you really desire to know the truth then you must conduct a personal experiment. It involves you reading the Bible and then asking God to show you that He is real. If you can reduce your emotions to science then you will be able to understand how to complete the experiment.
If you laugh, criticize, refuse to believe, and in general be a half-empty instead of half-full kind of person, then you lose, you fail.
Now, when we're talking about the perfect man - we're not talking about this man:
The perfect Gingerbread man -
cute, sweet and quiet, and if he annoys me I can bite his head off!
No, when we're talking about the perfect man - we're talking about this guy:
Are
you
ready
to
see
the
perfect
man
for
the
job?
Just kidding. Well, sort of.
Have a great week,
SoLoved
I'm going to help you along by telling you about an interesting sermon. I hope you can follow along - it's a bit involved.
This sermon was conducted by a Christian Missionary & Alliance Church Pastor on 8/28/05.
It is titled "The Supremacy of Christ". Truth is reality - truth is realized through Jesus Christ.
1. Start by reading Exodus 27:16 (old testament - for those who do not know this - the entire old testament is a testament to Jesus Christ - in other words - there is a story running through the old testament that when read in the light of the new testament - reveals Jesus Christ. For example - when God says in Genesis that the serpent shall strike your heel but you shall crush his head - he is talking about his son, Jesus Christ - this is in reference to Jesus dying on the cross (struck his heel) and then Jesus' victorious resurrection from the dead (crush his head)).
I hope you can follow this.
"The entrance of the enclosure shall be covered with a 20 cubit embroidered drape made of sky-blue, dark red, and crimson wool together with twisted linen. It shall have 4 pillars and 4 bases." (Exodus 27:16)
2. Then read Second Timothy 3:16 (This is to point out why we are studying Exodus 27:16)
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16)
3. Exodus 27:16 describes in great detail how the tabernacle where God said He would dwell with His people, was to be built.
There were 12 tribes of Israel (compare - Jesus had 12 disciples), but only one entrance to the tabernacle (symbolizes only one way to God - compare -
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6).
4. Why are the colors important? Colors were used to represent certain things:
Blue = represents the divine God
Red = servant, sacrifice
White = perfect humanity, purity, victory
Purple = King, Sovreignity
In the old testament:
When the tabernacle was complete there was only one entrance - all 12 tribes would go through the one way to be with God
When they saw the blue they would think of God
When they saw the red they would think of the animal sacrifice for their sins
When they saw the white they would remember that they were purified by the death of their animal sacrifice
When they saw purple this signified God's sovreignity
In the new testament:
Blue = When the resurrection was complete - there was made a way (the blue in the tabernacle entrance = Jesus) for all people to be with God.
Red = The red blood of Jesus provided the final, ultimate sacrifice for all of our sins.
White = Jesus is perfect humanity, pure and victorious.
Purple = Jesus the Christ is the Sovreign Lord, King, Supreme.
5. This wraps up the Supremacy of Christ. Colossians 1:15-20
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions
or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
He is the head of the body, the church.
He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent.
For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell,
and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross (through him),
whether those on earth or those in heaven. (Colossians 1:15-20)
6. Did you know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were all written using these representations? In other words,
each of the four gospels tells about Jesus using blue, red, white, and purple.
Matthew: Christ as King (blue)
Mark: Christ as Servant (red)
Luke: Christ as Man (white)
John: Christ as the Sovreign God (purple) (answers the question: Is Jesus Christ really the Son of God?)
7. Why four portraits (gospels) of Jesus? Jews needed to know Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies of Messiah/King.
Gentiles needed some Jewish cultural concepts explained. More importantly: we need a full picture of Jesus.
A Christian is more than a Bible thumper, viewing our many facets helps you better understand us.
Similarly, Jesus’ many facets — His heart, words, life, and mission — are all necessary to appreciating His true nature.
We must see Jesus as King (Matthew), the servant (Mark), like us - as man (Luke), and as sovreign God (John).
The moral of the story:
God didn't make no junk when he made you. He knew you in your mother's womb when he knit you together, He created you. He did not destroy you when He had the chance because He loves you.
If you really desire to know the truth then you must conduct a personal experiment. It involves you reading the Bible and then asking God to show you that He is real. If you can reduce your emotions to science then you will be able to understand how to complete the experiment.
If you laugh, criticize, refuse to believe, and in general be a half-empty instead of half-full kind of person, then you lose, you fail.
Now, when we're talking about the perfect man - we're not talking about this man: The perfect Gingerbread man - cute, sweet and quiet, and if he annoys me I can bite his head off!
No, when we're talking about the perfect man - we're talking about this guy:
Are
you
ready
to
see
the
perfect
man
for
the
job?
Just kidding. Well, sort of.
Have a great week,
SoLoved
Oops, sorry I posted it twice.
SoLoved just posted a voluminous number of statements which had among them falsehoods, misunderstandings, and so whats.
Others may be more energetic than I feel, but I'm not going to waste my time attempting a detailed response.
Others may be more energetic than I feel, but I'm not going to waste my time attempting a detailed response.
Lets see what I can do: TO THOSE THAT BELIEVE THESE POINTS
So where are the holes in evolution? Right off the top of my head.....
1. Inability to prove that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.
2. The evolution theory goes against real science by believing that information can arise from disorder by chance.
3. Inability to explain what time is, and therefore, being unable to fathom an Intelligent Designer with no beginning.
4. Inability to accept any other pre-suppositions than their own - such as in the beginning God.... - this puts the whole evolution theory at risk because you break your own rules, which are to consider all the evidence, not just the regurgitated information from a couple hundred years ago.
5. The evolutionist believes we are nothing but animals, an accident of cosmic evolution, with no purpose.
6. Darwin was not the first person to talk about evolution.
7. Evolution is contrary to the word of God. I realize that many of you could care less, nevertheless, this is a fact.
8. Your own community's pro-Darwin biography even tells what a liar and manipulator Darwin could be:
Darwin was known to invent deliberate falsehoods and this became a regular method of seeking the spotlight …
Darwin would do anything at school “for the pure pleasure of exciting attention and surprise.”
(Biography of "Darwin", published by Michael Joseph, London, 1991.
9. While we're on the subject of Darwin, can you tell me - were his father and grandfather anti-Christian? Was the family religion devoted to evolution? I thought Darwin 'stumbled' upon his theory while on a voyage? Also, did a fellow named Erasmus discuss evolution before or after Darwin?
10. Does evolution teach that women are inferior to men and that natural selection seems to favor men? I'm sure your new presidential hopeful Hillary would love to know this little tidbit of information.
11. Evolution does not fill the hole in you.
1: The Earth, as a matter of fact the whole Universe, is only 34 years old. And is still expanding. It was created the moment I was Born, and while I expand my knowledge, I create the Universe and all in it and all theories and all thoughts and all interaction to my own subconcious. You did not exists before I made you up. I created you and all your thoughts and created you with a false memory of History. And there is Nothing you can tell me that disproves this theory, because everything you tell me and you use to try to convince me otherwise is just something I created.
Besides, I created tree-ring dating also, that goes back more then 10.000 years, and carbon dating, and Polar Ice core dating.
2: Chance might seem small, but considering the amount of time and the amount of molecules, it will happen.
Not that long ago, a Computer Virus 'attacked' the Computer Hubs that regulate the communication along the Internet servers. The interesting part about this Self Replicating Virus was that it was only 512 BIT's long in coding. And noone was able to determine its origin, but the bit code just happened to contain the right combination to access the hub computers through a special dedicated port and copy itself. The chance for such a code to exist is 2^512 = 1.3408E+154 Which sounds small, but a computer can count to that number in a very short time. Considering the amount of data packages sent, every minute, the chance that a corruption in the transmitted data occurs that creates this special 512 Bit code is not that small after all. And alot of corruption is taking place every second on transmitted data, you just do not notice it because of the build in protection in the communication protocol. But often enough you get a corrupted download still.
3: Time is the passage from one Moment to the next Moment. Only people with limited intelligent want to have a beginning and an end. The universe has been and always will be. It might not be in a way you understand or can comprehend, but it will be. There is no beginning and no end, only beginnings and endings followed or preceded by something else.
4: Science Accepts science. There are a few Basic Rules you have to follow to be accepted as science. ID and CS, Religion, and all those people advocating it with their Blind subbornness just Refuse to accept those basic rules attached to science. If ID would simply abide by those rules, they would be accepted by the scientific community. The problem is, ID can't, well to be honest, ID can follow those rules, but the implication of following those rules goes against the beliefs of the religious zealots backing it.
5: Evolutionists do NOT believe we are Just Animals. Another BLATANT LIE. I thought your religion was against Lie and the spreading of lies, and Here you go off again, against your own religion.
Every Evolutionist beliefs, or better put, knows, that our Human body was formed over the ages through evolution from primitive forms that were adapting to the hardships they encountered. One survival trait was imagination, those that could imagine and plan for the future, and improvise, were able to survive those hardships. That is what makes humans special.
For the rest of it, alot of Evolutionists still believe in God, they believe that God chose this human species as vessel for our Human Soul, a Soul that was created in His own image.
6: He was the first person that used a Scientific method of observation and examination and then connected them with a theory and published it. And as to this day, although the theory has been specialised and adapted, the basic structure still withstands Scientific scrutiny.
7: Wow, you must be God, because you are so able to put your words in Gods mouth. This is just the way of Satan, limiting the wonders of God by using Gods word for your own advantage. Using Gods word to suppress and controll and enslave other Human beings. You call this a fact, but it just shows your limited understanding and limited intelligence, you, who has been given intellect by God and a free will, and you enslave yourself to some power monger preaching to you, and you just copying that mans words? Why not think for yourself, use your own free will and intelligence and question what you read and examine what you read instead of just following as sheep after a sheperd with the loudest voice, right to the slaughterhouse. You are following the easy road, just accepting the explanation of someone else, instead of doing the hard road of examining it yourself. The easy road to Hell.
8: Well, when you are a famous person, I am sure we can dig up your past also, speak to your teachers and find dirt on you also from your childhood.
9: Uhm, Erasmus was Before Darwin, I believe Erasmus was from the 16th century, during the Reformation. Erasmus was a Church scholar that also critised the Catholic church, but instead of throwing away the Baby with the bathwater, like Calvin and Luther did, Erasmus Proclaimed to stay within the Catholic Church and reform the Church from the inside. Erasmus was one of the greatest thinkers of its time while staying true to the Mother Church and still changing the course the catholic church was going, while others created sects and discourse resulting in great injustice and suffering for the ages to come.
10: No, it doesn't. It is religion that teaches that. It is organised religion that seperates races and genders. Evolution is Fair.
11: Evolution is not meant to fill the Hole in you. Evolution is science. The Hole in you is meant to be filled by God, by Religion. Maybe if you started to use that god given free will of yours, instead of parotting false testemonies you would know the difference between science and religion.
QUOTE
So where are the holes in evolution? Right off the top of my head.....
1. Inability to prove that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.
2. The evolution theory goes against real science by believing that information can arise from disorder by chance.
3. Inability to explain what time is, and therefore, being unable to fathom an Intelligent Designer with no beginning.
4. Inability to accept any other pre-suppositions than their own - such as in the beginning God.... - this puts the whole evolution theory at risk because you break your own rules, which are to consider all the evidence, not just the regurgitated information from a couple hundred years ago.
5. The evolutionist believes we are nothing but animals, an accident of cosmic evolution, with no purpose.
6. Darwin was not the first person to talk about evolution.
7. Evolution is contrary to the word of God. I realize that many of you could care less, nevertheless, this is a fact.
8. Your own community's pro-Darwin biography even tells what a liar and manipulator Darwin could be:
Darwin was known to invent deliberate falsehoods and this became a regular method of seeking the spotlight …
Darwin would do anything at school “for the pure pleasure of exciting attention and surprise.”
(Biography of "Darwin", published by Michael Joseph, London, 1991.
9. While we're on the subject of Darwin, can you tell me - were his father and grandfather anti-Christian? Was the family religion devoted to evolution? I thought Darwin 'stumbled' upon his theory while on a voyage? Also, did a fellow named Erasmus discuss evolution before or after Darwin?
10. Does evolution teach that women are inferior to men and that natural selection seems to favor men? I'm sure your new presidential hopeful Hillary would love to know this little tidbit of information.
11. Evolution does not fill the hole in you.
1: The Earth, as a matter of fact the whole Universe, is only 34 years old. And is still expanding. It was created the moment I was Born, and while I expand my knowledge, I create the Universe and all in it and all theories and all thoughts and all interaction to my own subconcious. You did not exists before I made you up. I created you and all your thoughts and created you with a false memory of History. And there is Nothing you can tell me that disproves this theory, because everything you tell me and you use to try to convince me otherwise is just something I created.
Besides, I created tree-ring dating also, that goes back more then 10.000 years, and carbon dating, and Polar Ice core dating.
2: Chance might seem small, but considering the amount of time and the amount of molecules, it will happen.
Not that long ago, a Computer Virus 'attacked' the Computer Hubs that regulate the communication along the Internet servers. The interesting part about this Self Replicating Virus was that it was only 512 BIT's long in coding. And noone was able to determine its origin, but the bit code just happened to contain the right combination to access the hub computers through a special dedicated port and copy itself. The chance for such a code to exist is 2^512 = 1.3408E+154 Which sounds small, but a computer can count to that number in a very short time. Considering the amount of data packages sent, every minute, the chance that a corruption in the transmitted data occurs that creates this special 512 Bit code is not that small after all. And alot of corruption is taking place every second on transmitted data, you just do not notice it because of the build in protection in the communication protocol. But often enough you get a corrupted download still.
3: Time is the passage from one Moment to the next Moment. Only people with limited intelligent want to have a beginning and an end. The universe has been and always will be. It might not be in a way you understand or can comprehend, but it will be. There is no beginning and no end, only beginnings and endings followed or preceded by something else.
4: Science Accepts science. There are a few Basic Rules you have to follow to be accepted as science. ID and CS, Religion, and all those people advocating it with their Blind subbornness just Refuse to accept those basic rules attached to science. If ID would simply abide by those rules, they would be accepted by the scientific community. The problem is, ID can't, well to be honest, ID can follow those rules, but the implication of following those rules goes against the beliefs of the religious zealots backing it.
5: Evolutionists do NOT believe we are Just Animals. Another BLATANT LIE. I thought your religion was against Lie and the spreading of lies, and Here you go off again, against your own religion.
Every Evolutionist beliefs, or better put, knows, that our Human body was formed over the ages through evolution from primitive forms that were adapting to the hardships they encountered. One survival trait was imagination, those that could imagine and plan for the future, and improvise, were able to survive those hardships. That is what makes humans special.
For the rest of it, alot of Evolutionists still believe in God, they believe that God chose this human species as vessel for our Human Soul, a Soul that was created in His own image.
6: He was the first person that used a Scientific method of observation and examination and then connected them with a theory and published it. And as to this day, although the theory has been specialised and adapted, the basic structure still withstands Scientific scrutiny.
7: Wow, you must be God, because you are so able to put your words in Gods mouth. This is just the way of Satan, limiting the wonders of God by using Gods word for your own advantage. Using Gods word to suppress and controll and enslave other Human beings. You call this a fact, but it just shows your limited understanding and limited intelligence, you, who has been given intellect by God and a free will, and you enslave yourself to some power monger preaching to you, and you just copying that mans words? Why not think for yourself, use your own free will and intelligence and question what you read and examine what you read instead of just following as sheep after a sheperd with the loudest voice, right to the slaughterhouse. You are following the easy road, just accepting the explanation of someone else, instead of doing the hard road of examining it yourself. The easy road to Hell.
8: Well, when you are a famous person, I am sure we can dig up your past also, speak to your teachers and find dirt on you also from your childhood.
9: Uhm, Erasmus was Before Darwin, I believe Erasmus was from the 16th century, during the Reformation. Erasmus was a Church scholar that also critised the Catholic church, but instead of throwing away the Baby with the bathwater, like Calvin and Luther did, Erasmus Proclaimed to stay within the Catholic Church and reform the Church from the inside. Erasmus was one of the greatest thinkers of its time while staying true to the Mother Church and still changing the course the catholic church was going, while others created sects and discourse resulting in great injustice and suffering for the ages to come.
10: No, it doesn't. It is religion that teaches that. It is organised religion that seperates races and genders. Evolution is Fair.
11: Evolution is not meant to fill the Hole in you. Evolution is science. The Hole in you is meant to be filled by God, by Religion. Maybe if you started to use that god given free will of yours, instead of parotting false testemonies you would know the difference between science and religion.
Sure is enough to convince anyone half-aware of science (or history of religion) to never vote Republican, anyway.
BTW, the USA was founded primarily by a lot of breakaway religious groups whose primary object was to find a place where they would be allowed to "think for themselves" regarding religion, not have it stuffed down their throats by any central authority, including public schools. Buy a history book and keep ID out of schools.
I would also point out that the religions of the world are rife with contradictory "creation myths", eg Google for "Creation Myth" (but watch out for the ones which appear to have been randomly trashed) for a sampling. It has always been a primary reason for the development of religion. Actually "Intelligent" design doesn't predominate among them. Forcing eg. a Native American believer in any of the many religions developed there, or a Buddist child etc. etc. to study ID simply because some minority of christians insist is to me very distasteful.
Or this site http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm
"since 1944, the Gallup Poll has been asking Americans whether they "believe in God or a universal spirit." The answers have always been 94% or more affirmative. These numbers have been so widely reported in academic articles, and the media that they have been almost etched in stone. However, the ISSP results are under 63%. The wide gap is probably due to the different wording of the question asked. The ISSP requires a degree of certainty of belief that is not present in the Gallup Poll. This shows that many Americans who believe in God are not that certain about their conviction."
the results of a survey showing the percentage of persons who said yes to the following question: "In your opinion, how true is this? ...Human beings developed from earlier species of animals.." The results are a measure of belief in human evolution, and disbelief in creation science.
Country God Afterlife Bible Devil Hell Heaven Miracles Evolution
United States 62.8 55.0 33.5 45.4 49.6 63.1 45.6 <35.4
N. Ireland 61.4 53.5 32.7 43.1 47.9 63.7 44.2 51.5
Philippines 86.2 35.2 53.7 28.3 29.6 41.9 27.7 60.9
Ireland 58.7 45.9 24.9 24.8 25.9 51.8 36.9 60.1
Poland 66.3 37.8 37.4 15.4 21.4 38.6 22.7 35.4
Italy 51.4 34.8 27.0 20.4 21.7 27.9 32.9 65.2
New Zealand 29.3 35.5 9.4 21.4 18.7 32.2 23.1 66.3
(Israel) 43.0 21.9 26.7 12.6 22.5 24.0 26.4 56.9
Austria 29.4 24.8 12.7 11.1 10.0 20.1 27.4 N/A
Norway 20.1 31.6 11.2 13.1 11.4 23.0 17.8 65.0
Great Britain 23.8 26.5 7.0 12.7 12.8 24.6 15.3 76.7
Netherlands 24.7 26.7 8.4 13.3 11.1 21.1 10.2 58.6
W. Germany 27.3 24.4 12.5 9.5 9.3 18.2 22.7 72.7
Russia 12.4 16.8 9.9 12.5 13.0 14.7 18.7 41.4
Slovenia 21.9 11.6 22.3 6.9 8.3 9.5 13.4 60.7
Hungary 30.1 10.6 19.2 4.2 5.8 9.4 8.2 62.8
E. Germany 9.2 6.1 7.5 3.6 2.6 10.2 11.8 81.6
Note Great Britain, 76.7% vs US <35.4%. IF US wants to be considered a centre of scientific community, it needs to consider these stats carefully with respect to religions effect on education.
Provable science with scientific evidence should be taught in schools. Keep the ID for the churches.
BTW, the USA was founded primarily by a lot of breakaway religious groups whose primary object was to find a place where they would be allowed to "think for themselves" regarding religion, not have it stuffed down their throats by any central authority, including public schools. Buy a history book and keep ID out of schools.
I would also point out that the religions of the world are rife with contradictory "creation myths", eg Google for "Creation Myth" (but watch out for the ones which appear to have been randomly trashed) for a sampling. It has always been a primary reason for the development of religion. Actually "Intelligent" design doesn't predominate among them. Forcing eg. a Native American believer in any of the many religions developed there, or a Buddist child etc. etc. to study ID simply because some minority of christians insist is to me very distasteful.
Or this site http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm
"since 1944, the Gallup Poll has been asking Americans whether they "believe in God or a universal spirit." The answers have always been 94% or more affirmative. These numbers have been so widely reported in academic articles, and the media that they have been almost etched in stone. However, the ISSP results are under 63%. The wide gap is probably due to the different wording of the question asked. The ISSP requires a degree of certainty of belief that is not present in the Gallup Poll. This shows that many Americans who believe in God are not that certain about their conviction."
the results of a survey showing the percentage of persons who said yes to the following question: "In your opinion, how true is this? ...Human beings developed from earlier species of animals.." The results are a measure of belief in human evolution, and disbelief in creation science.
Country God Afterlife Bible Devil Hell Heaven Miracles Evolution
United States 62.8 55.0 33.5 45.4 49.6 63.1 45.6 <35.4
N. Ireland 61.4 53.5 32.7 43.1 47.9 63.7 44.2 51.5
Philippines 86.2 35.2 53.7 28.3 29.6 41.9 27.7 60.9
Ireland 58.7 45.9 24.9 24.8 25.9 51.8 36.9 60.1
Poland 66.3 37.8 37.4 15.4 21.4 38.6 22.7 35.4
Italy 51.4 34.8 27.0 20.4 21.7 27.9 32.9 65.2
New Zealand 29.3 35.5 9.4 21.4 18.7 32.2 23.1 66.3
(Israel) 43.0 21.9 26.7 12.6 22.5 24.0 26.4 56.9
Austria 29.4 24.8 12.7 11.1 10.0 20.1 27.4 N/A
Norway 20.1 31.6 11.2 13.1 11.4 23.0 17.8 65.0
Great Britain 23.8 26.5 7.0 12.7 12.8 24.6 15.3 76.7
Netherlands 24.7 26.7 8.4 13.3 11.1 21.1 10.2 58.6
W. Germany 27.3 24.4 12.5 9.5 9.3 18.2 22.7 72.7
Russia 12.4 16.8 9.9 12.5 13.0 14.7 18.7 41.4
Slovenia 21.9 11.6 22.3 6.9 8.3 9.5 13.4 60.7
Hungary 30.1 10.6 19.2 4.2 5.8 9.4 8.2 62.8
E. Germany 9.2 6.1 7.5 3.6 2.6 10.2 11.8 81.6
Note Great Britain, 76.7% vs US <35.4%. IF US wants to be considered a centre of scientific community, it needs to consider these stats carefully with respect to religions effect on education.
Provable science with scientific evidence should be taught in schools. Keep the ID for the churches.
DNA replicates, transcribes to RNA which translates to protein -- All which are processes that will not happen without the aid of complex enzymes (proteins) like polymerases, and transcriptases.
Updated chicken or egg.
Updated chicken or egg.
I share the frustration of people like CactusCritter, but I’m feeling up to challenging some of this nonsense. Let me know if I miss anything.
As noted, much like Hovind’s and dCalvin’s misunderstanding or misclassification, evolution does not attempt to date the Earth, but how life became what is it today.
The geological record is well established and dated the planet quite effectively. Adopting the mindset of Hovind and dCalvin and simply dismissing an entire branch of science does not make your view factual.
As noted, much like Hovind’s and dCalvin’s misunderstanding or misclassification, evolution does not attempt to date the Earth, but how life became what is it today.
The geological record is well established and dated the planet quite effectively. Adopting the mindset of Hovind and dCalvin and simply dismissing an entire branch of science does not make your view factual.
2. The evolution theory goes against real science by believing that information can arise from disorder by chance.
Another misunderstanding of the theory.
Evolution does not address or seek to address time or temporal mechanics.
Evolution does not address or seek to address time or temporal mechanics.
4. Inability to accept any other pre-suppositions than their own - such as in the beginning God.... - this puts the whole evolution theory at risk because you break your own rules, which are to consider all the evidence, not just the regurgitated information from a couple hundred years ago.
Evolution, like all science, is based on evidence that is tangible, verifiable and arguably falsifiable. Any mythos such as your claim of a creator is not based in reality, is not tangible and is not verifiable. But take heart; at least you met the falsifiable qualification. I jest .
You presume god and every claim of a book of myth is fact. You must prove your claims first.
We are animals, albeit and arguably intelligent ones. Contrary to the demands of the theistic or philosophical, life needs no purpose.
Speaking form a personal note, you determine exactly what your purpose is.
Also, how is this a hole in the theory of evolution?
We are animals, albeit and arguably intelligent ones. Contrary to the demands of the theistic or philosophical, life needs no purpose.
Speaking form a personal note, you determine exactly what your purpose is.
Also, how is this a hole in the theory of evolution?
6. Darwin was not the first person to talk about evolution.
And this is a hole in evolution? I must ask how?
So evolution is contrary to your particular religious myth. I bet it is also contrary to most, dare I say all, religious myths. How is this a hole in the theory of evolution?
So evolution is contrary to your particular religious myth. I bet it is also contrary to most, dare I say all, religious myths. How is this a hole in the theory of evolution?
8. Your own community's pro-Darwin biography even tells what a liar and manipulator Darwin could be:
This was addressed, but I feel I must point out the type of tactics use to disqualify either evolution or it’s author. Again, how is this a hole in the theory of evolution?
How is this a hole in the theory of evolution? Contrary to claims such as dCalvin’s, science does not include philosophy or personal spirituality or the lack thereof. The lack of someone’s religion does not effect their capability pursue science.
How is this a hole in the theory of evolution? Contrary to claims such as dCalvin’s, science does not include philosophy or personal spirituality or the lack thereof. The lack of someone’s religion does not effect their capability pursue science.
10. Does evolution teach that women are inferior to men and that natural selection seems to favor men? I'm sure your new presidential hopeful Hillary would love to know this little tidbit of information.
Concepts of superiority and inferiority come for social order. In nature, the roles of male and female animals are often set by environment and evolutionary factors.
One such social order that does address such a topic would be religion. You know, like your religion where women are considered to be inferior to men.
Try to refrain from mixing science and politics. It is bad enough you wish to mix science and religion.
If you speak of spirituality, that again is a mythical religious concept. Such a notion could be addresses also by philosophy, but it has nothing to do with evolution.
So, where are all these holes?
I pointed out in another forum one major problem with debating theists. Religion is all encompassing to them. It addresses origin (as it has been called), societal structure, societal rules and our final fate. If you do not follow a mainstream religion, such as the xian religion, the faithful automatically assume that what you do believe or support must be a defacto replacement for the religion you reject and everything it addresses.
QUOTE
So where are the holes in evolution? Right off the top of my head.....
1. Inability to prove that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.
1. Inability to prove that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.
As noted, much like Hovind’s and dCalvin’s misunderstanding or misclassification, evolution does not attempt to date the Earth, but how life became what is it today.
The geological record is well established and dated the planet quite effectively. Adopting the mindset of Hovind and dCalvin and simply dismissing an entire branch of science does not make your view factual.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So where are the holes in evolution? Right off the top of my head..... 1. Inability to prove that the earth is more than 10,000 years old. |
As noted, much like Hovind’s and dCalvin’s misunderstanding or misclassification, evolution does not attempt to date the Earth, but how life became what is it today.
The geological record is well established and dated the planet quite effectively. Adopting the mindset of Hovind and dCalvin and simply dismissing an entire branch of science does not make your view factual.
2. The evolution theory goes against real science by believing that information can arise from disorder by chance.
Another misunderstanding of the theory.
QUOTE
3. Inability to explain what time is, and therefore, being unable to fathom an Intelligent Designer with no beginning.
Evolution does not address or seek to address time or temporal mechanics.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 3. Inability to explain what time is, and therefore, being unable to fathom an Intelligent Designer with no beginning. |
Evolution does not address or seek to address time or temporal mechanics.
4. Inability to accept any other pre-suppositions than their own - such as in the beginning God.... - this puts the whole evolution theory at risk because you break your own rules, which are to consider all the evidence, not just the regurgitated information from a couple hundred years ago.
Evolution, like all science, is based on evidence that is tangible, verifiable and arguably falsifiable. Any mythos such as your claim of a creator is not based in reality, is not tangible and is not verifiable. But take heart; at least you met the falsifiable qualification. I jest
. You presume god and every claim of a book of myth is fact. You must prove your claims first.
QUOTE
5. The evolutionist believes we are nothing but animals, an accident of cosmic evolution, with no purpose.
We are animals, albeit and arguably intelligent ones. Contrary to the demands of the theistic or philosophical, life needs no purpose.
Speaking form a personal note, you determine exactly what your purpose is.
Also, how is this a hole in the theory of evolution?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 5. The evolutionist believes we are nothing but animals, an accident of cosmic evolution, with no purpose. |
We are animals, albeit and arguably intelligent ones. Contrary to the demands of the theistic or philosophical, life needs no purpose.
Speaking form a personal note, you determine exactly what your purpose is.
Also, how is this a hole in the theory of evolution?
6. Darwin was not the first person to talk about evolution.
And this is a hole in evolution? I must ask how?
QUOTE
7. Evolution is contrary to the word of God. I realize that many of you could care less, nevertheless, this is a fact.
So evolution is contrary to your particular religious myth. I bet it is also contrary to most, dare I say all, religious myths. How is this a hole in the theory of evolution?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 7. Evolution is contrary to the word of God. I realize that many of you could care less, nevertheless, this is a fact. |
So evolution is contrary to your particular religious myth. I bet it is also contrary to most, dare I say all, religious myths. How is this a hole in the theory of evolution?
8. Your own community's pro-Darwin biography even tells what a liar and manipulator Darwin could be:
This was addressed, but I feel I must point out the type of tactics use to disqualify either evolution or it’s author. Again, how is this a hole in the theory of evolution?
QUOTE
9. While we're on the subject of Darwin, can you tell me - were his father and grandfather anti-Christian? Was the family religion devoted to evolution? I thought Darwin 'stumbled' upon his theory while on a voyage? Also, did a fellow named Erasmus discuss evolution before or after Darwin?
How is this a hole in the theory of evolution? Contrary to claims such as dCalvin’s, science does not include philosophy or personal spirituality or the lack thereof. The lack of someone’s religion does not effect their capability pursue science.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 9. While we're on the subject of Darwin, can you tell me - were his father and grandfather anti-Christian? Was the family religion devoted to evolution? I thought Darwin 'stumbled' upon his theory while on a voyage? Also, did a fellow named Erasmus discuss evolution before or after Darwin? |
How is this a hole in the theory of evolution? Contrary to claims such as dCalvin’s, science does not include philosophy or personal spirituality or the lack thereof. The lack of someone’s religion does not effect their capability pursue science.
10. Does evolution teach that women are inferior to men and that natural selection seems to favor men? I'm sure your new presidential hopeful Hillary would love to know this little tidbit of information.
Concepts of superiority and inferiority come for social order. In nature, the roles of male and female animals are often set by environment and evolutionary factors.
One such social order that does address such a topic would be religion. You know, like your religion where women are considered to be inferior to men.
Try to refrain from mixing science and politics. It is bad enough you wish to mix science and religion.
QUOTE
11. Evolution does not fill the hole in you.
If you speak of spirituality, that again is a mythical religious concept. Such a notion could be addresses also by philosophy, but it has nothing to do with evolution.
So, where are all these holes?
I pointed out in another forum one major problem with debating theists. Religion is all encompassing to them. It addresses origin (as it has been called), societal structure, societal rules and our final fate. If you do not follow a mainstream religion, such as the xian religion, the faithful automatically assume that what you do believe or support must be a defacto replacement for the religion you reject and everything it addresses.
QUOTE (soloved+Aug 29 2005, 04:26 AM)
So where are the holes in evolution? Right off the top of my head.....
1. Inability to prove that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.
Here are some radioactive isotopes that are abundantly present on earth:
uranium-238 - half-life of 4.51 billion years
uranium-235 - half-life of 0.71 billion years
thorium-232 - half-life of 14.1 billion years
potassium-40 -half-life of 1.28 billion years
Here are some isotopes that are not found on earth:
plutonium-244 - half-life of 80 million years
uranium-236 - half-life of 23.9 million years (and a product of plutonium decay)
curium-247 - half-life of 16 million years
neptunium-237 - half-life of 2.14 million years
Radioactive isotopes can be identified by their radiation signature in amounts much less than you need for chemical analysis.
The absence of plutonium from the rocks of the earth indicates that the earth has been around for at least 30 half-lives of plutonium-244, or at least 2.4 billion years. If the age of the earth were any less, we would be able to detect the 1 part in 1 billion or so that would remain from the original plutonium that was present.
The presence of uranium-235 (under 1% of all uranium) on the other hand, indicates that the earth has been around for less than 20 of its half-lives (14.2 billion years) but the amount of its final decay product, lead-207, found in natural lead limits the age of the earth to a maximum of 6 billion years.
Other evidence and detailed analysis is what allows geologists to be confident that the age of the earth is very close to 4.5 billion years old.
Arthur
1. Inability to prove that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.
Here are some radioactive isotopes that are abundantly present on earth:
uranium-238 - half-life of 4.51 billion years
uranium-235 - half-life of 0.71 billion years
thorium-232 - half-life of 14.1 billion years
potassium-40 -half-life of 1.28 billion years
Here are some isotopes that are not found on earth:
plutonium-244 - half-life of 80 million years
uranium-236 - half-life of 23.9 million years (and a product of plutonium decay)
curium-247 - half-life of 16 million years
neptunium-237 - half-life of 2.14 million years
Radioactive isotopes can be identified by their radiation signature in amounts much less than you need for chemical analysis.
The absence of plutonium from the rocks of the earth indicates that the earth has been around for at least 30 half-lives of plutonium-244, or at least 2.4 billion years. If the age of the earth were any less, we would be able to detect the 1 part in 1 billion or so that would remain from the original plutonium that was present.
The presence of uranium-235 (under 1% of all uranium) on the other hand, indicates that the earth has been around for less than 20 of its half-lives (14.2 billion years) but the amount of its final decay product, lead-207, found in natural lead limits the age of the earth to a maximum of 6 billion years.
Other evidence and detailed analysis is what allows geologists to be confident that the age of the earth is very close to 4.5 billion years old.
Arthur
hello, all:
We seem to be on te idiot express, today...
Oooops - moron alert!!!!!!!!
The half-life of 14C (carbon-14) is 5170 years. The half-life of 40K (potassium-40) is 1.28 billion years!!!!!!!!
Now you're going to say there's no such thing as nuclear decay? Great - just never go to the doctor EVER again - particularly for ANYTHING cardiac - since cardiologists use 201Th (thallium 201) or 99Tc (technicium-99) or sestamibi for many many cardiac assays. Oh, and don't get a PET scan for some life-threatening brain anomaly, either, since that uses 17O (oxygen-17) enriched glucose. Oh, and forget about any advanced thyroid issues since endocrinologists use 131I as a tracer.
Oooops - moron alert!!!!!!!!
The half-life of 14C (carbon-14) is 5170 years. The half-life of 40K (potassium-40) is 1.28 billion years!!!!!!!!
Now you're going to say there's no such thing as nuclear decay? Great - just never go to the doctor EVER again - particularly for ANYTHING cardiac - since cardiologists use 201Th (thallium 201) or 99Tc (technicium-99) or sestamibi for many many cardiac assays. Oh, and don't get a PET scan for some life-threatening brain anomaly, either, since that uses 17O (oxygen-17) enriched glucose. Oh, and forget about any advanced thyroid issues since endocrinologists use 131I as a tracer.
3. Inability to explain what time is, and therefore, being unable to fathom an Intelligent Designer with no beginning.
Time is merely a measured quantity - the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation emitted in the transition b/t 2 hyperfine levels of the 133Cs (cesium-133) atom. We can even predict in many systems what happens when time goes backwards - it even has a name: a "time-reversal operator" and works very very well, I might add - I got the calculation right on my exam, too!
ooooooops - moron alert x 10!!!! Very funny, if this idiot didn't actually believe this speciousness. Chance? Do you know what a "local energy minimum" is? Your bullsh&t was already handily disproven by the Miller experiments in the 60's. Please read a high-school chemistry book beFORE you start flinging this nonsense.
The world inexorably tends toward greater entropy first of all and second of all, just because we haven't figured out what a particular curve is, does NOT mean there isn't a curve there.
ooooooops - moron alert x 10!!!! Very funny, if this idiot didn't actually believe this speciousness. Chance? Do you know what a "local energy minimum" is? Your bullsh&t was already handily disproven by the Miller experiments in the 60's. Please read a high-school chemistry book beFORE you start flinging this nonsense.
The world inexorably tends toward greater entropy first of all and second of all, just because we haven't figured out what a particular curve is, does NOT mean there isn't a curve there.
4. Inability to accept any other pre-suppositions than their own - such as in the beginning God.... - this puts the whole evolution theory at risk because you break your own rules, which are to consider all the evidence, not just the regurgitated information from a couple hundred years ago.
no measurement = no science. no evidence = no model. Show me "evidence" of a G_d and I will show you how poorly you understand science, nothing more. EVIDENCE????? Dude -
7. Evolution is contrary to the word of God. I realize that many of you could care less, nevertheless, this is a fact.
hee heee eheeeeh eaaaaaa ha aaahaaaa! You can't even write your English correctly, and you expect me to regard this statement w/ any validity?
I just realized I am trying to present arguments to a child...this is futile. I URGE you to pick up an earth science book, biology, biochemistry ANYTHING to get you out of your subhuman state: you have supplanted intellect with ignorance.
-angrily spinning my solids and the amplifier is giving me weak amperage - must be G_d telling me my nuclei need a break
Although it is, of course, impossible to describe any comprehensive science theory in one sentence, here's a very simplistic fact:
Traits that promote survival (and more importantly, reproductive success) will be passed on to the next generation; those that do not, will decrease in abundance.
I don't see how anyone can argue with this. You might complain that this only explains MICROevolution within species and not the MACROevolution of say, entire kingdoms, but new species are simply created when two groups of living things can no longer interbreed (for endless examples of this, see a book such as "Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions").
If you believe that someone is shaping the path evolution takes, that's fine. I certainly can't disprove it. But I can say that this belief is not necessary - there's no reason that any supernatural forces need to be involved. The path evolution has taken is slow and full of dead ends, but also beautiful in its simplicity.
We seem to be on te idiot express, today...
QUOTE
1. Inability to prove that the Earth is greater than 10,000 years old???
Oooops - moron alert!!!!!!!!
The half-life of 14C (carbon-14) is 5170 years. The half-life of 40K (potassium-40) is 1.28 billion years!!!!!!!!
Now you're going to say there's no such thing as nuclear decay? Great - just never go to the doctor EVER again - particularly for ANYTHING cardiac - since cardiologists use 201Th (thallium 201) or 99Tc (technicium-99) or sestamibi for many many cardiac assays. Oh, and don't get a PET scan for some life-threatening brain anomaly, either, since that uses 17O (oxygen-17) enriched glucose. Oh, and forget about any advanced thyroid issues since endocrinologists use 131I as a tracer.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. Inability to prove that the Earth is greater than 10,000 years old??? |
Oooops - moron alert!!!!!!!!
The half-life of 14C (carbon-14) is 5170 years. The half-life of 40K (potassium-40) is 1.28 billion years!!!!!!!!
Now you're going to say there's no such thing as nuclear decay? Great - just never go to the doctor EVER again - particularly for ANYTHING cardiac - since cardiologists use 201Th (thallium 201) or 99Tc (technicium-99) or sestamibi for many many cardiac assays. Oh, and don't get a PET scan for some life-threatening brain anomaly, either, since that uses 17O (oxygen-17) enriched glucose. Oh, and forget about any advanced thyroid issues since endocrinologists use 131I as a tracer.
3. Inability to explain what time is, and therefore, being unable to fathom an Intelligent Designer with no beginning.
Time is merely a measured quantity - the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation emitted in the transition b/t 2 hyperfine levels of the 133Cs (cesium-133) atom. We can even predict in many systems what happens when time goes backwards - it even has a name: a "time-reversal operator" and works very very well, I might add - I got the calculation right on my exam, too!
QUOTE
2. The evolution theory goes against real science by believing that information can arise from disorder by chance.
ooooooops - moron alert x 10!!!! Very funny, if this idiot didn't actually believe this speciousness. Chance? Do you know what a "local energy minimum" is? Your bullsh&t was already handily disproven by the Miller experiments in the 60's. Please read a high-school chemistry book beFORE you start flinging this nonsense.
The world inexorably tends toward greater entropy first of all and second of all, just because we haven't figured out what a particular curve is, does NOT mean there isn't a curve there.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2. The evolution theory goes against real science by believing that information can arise from disorder by chance. |
ooooooops - moron alert x 10!!!! Very funny, if this idiot didn't actually believe this speciousness. Chance? Do you know what a "local energy minimum" is? Your bullsh&t was already handily disproven by the Miller experiments in the 60's. Please read a high-school chemistry book beFORE you start flinging this nonsense.
The world inexorably tends toward greater entropy first of all and second of all, just because we haven't figured out what a particular curve is, does NOT mean there isn't a curve there.
4. Inability to accept any other pre-suppositions than their own - such as in the beginning God.... - this puts the whole evolution theory at risk because you break your own rules, which are to consider all the evidence, not just the regurgitated information from a couple hundred years ago.
no measurement = no science. no evidence = no model. Show me "evidence" of a G_d and I will show you how poorly you understand science, nothing more. EVIDENCE????? Dude -
QUOTE
7. Evolution is contrary to the word of God. I realize that many of you could care less, nevertheless, this is a fact.
hee heee eheeeeh eaaaaaa ha aaahaaaa! You can't even write your English correctly, and you expect me to regard this statement w/ any validity?
I just realized I am trying to present arguments to a child...this is futile. I URGE you to pick up an earth science book, biology, biochemistry ANYTHING to get you out of your subhuman state: you have supplanted intellect with ignorance.
-angrily spinning my solids and the amplifier is giving me weak amperage - must be G_d telling me my nuclei need a break
oh, here -
read these:
Science, October 6, 2000; 290(5489): 147 - 150
Science 285, 1748–1751 (1999)
or this one is grrrrrrrreat:
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 278, Issue 43, 41573-41576, October 24, 2003
What these tell you is that now that we can see the entire genome of several different species, we have MUCH greater ability to see mutation curves. They're wonderful and more robustly support the evolutionary model than most other evidence from the past. The reason is that we can now (w/ C. elegans, for example) see hundreds of generations. This allows us
Evolution is a model supported by copious evidence. ID has zero empirical evidence. These studies and many others put the nail in the coffin for ID, since now we primitive humans can watch as hundreds of generations of this species evolve. The mutation curves are truly beautiful By no means is the Evolutionary model complete. These studies have demonstrated that. This is the nature of science - continuous discovery.
This is the opposite of religion - that fetid, anoxic concept that is responsible for almost all of the wars known to man. That which is responsible for more death than all the plagues that have ever afflicted the human species.
read these:
Science, October 6, 2000; 290(5489): 147 - 150
Science 285, 1748–1751 (1999)
or this one is grrrrrrrreat:
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 278, Issue 43, 41573-41576, October 24, 2003
What these tell you is that now that we can see the entire genome of several different species, we have MUCH greater ability to see mutation curves. They're wonderful and more robustly support the evolutionary model than most other evidence from the past. The reason is that we can now (w/ C. elegans, for example) see hundreds of generations. This allows us
Evolution is a model supported by copious evidence. ID has zero empirical evidence. These studies and many others put the nail in the coffin for ID, since now we primitive humans can watch as hundreds of generations of this species evolve. The mutation curves are truly beautiful By no means is the Evolutionary model complete. These studies have demonstrated that. This is the nature of science - continuous discovery.
This is the opposite of religion - that fetid, anoxic concept that is responsible for almost all of the wars known to man. That which is responsible for more death than all the plagues that have ever afflicted the human species.
So, I read the whole thread, didn't bother to check the date to see if anyone is still reading it, but here goes. You = Big Fan of the Magic Man
#1. If you want to argue things from a book, you should do a little research into the history and writing of the book. I imagine you know very little about the archeological history of Israel. Also, I imagine you wouldn't accept it anyhow. Not that you'd have any reason to.
#2. Why do you believe in God? Perchance cause your parents believed in God? Are your beliefs identical to theirs? Just an interesting parallel.
#3. An interesting fact, I did not notice anyone argue against evolution and NOT argue for God.
#4. Something interesting... You guys like to say IMPROBABLE, IMPROBABLE... While I think this has been adequately dealt with by previous posters, EVERYTHING that happens is highly improbable. If you went back 10 years, and were curious if some group of carbon molecules residing in some barley grain in Ukraine would end up getting depositied on this keyboard as I type... Well, its highly unlikely. Doesn't mean something like that isn't happening.
#5. Theological belief is not science. That's why you need the word faith. The basic problem is that you ASSUME God exists. Its sort of a P->Q thing. If P is false, then Q is ALWAYS true.
#6. Also, one doesn't need to examine very many of these types of arguments to see a trend. God makes volcanoes.... oh, um, well, I guess he doesn't then huh? God makes the rain... Oh, yeah, good point, wel, um.. God makes babies. Good try there Mary... God made humans... Well, evolution IS an awfully good theory God made the universe! HA HA HA, WE GOT YOU!!
Just cause we HAVEN'T figured it out yet, just cause you can disprove a theory, does not, in anyways, make yours right. That's the equivalent of being, 2+2=5. Nope, 2+2=4, therefore, there's this crazy dude in the sky that causes women to not want to have sex with me unless I'm nice...
#7. Oooh, a MAGIC number. Anyhow, if you follow the history of religion, and read any scholorly work about when the bible was written (end of the late bronze) why it was written (for Judah to claim ownership of Israel after the Assyrians withdrew to defend against the rebelling babylonians), why its bullshit (cause king Josiah was SUPPOSED to be the messiah, but Jerusalem got whacked by Babylon), and some basic definition of terms, Messiah had nothing to do with a divine creature. It simply meant future leader of Isreal, which, by definition would include Sharon and not Jesus. Also, the widely held scholarly belief that Jesus referred to the Son of Man not as himself, but some divine being, and that he was just a random first century apocalyptic prophet who thought the world was gonna end in the next few years (much like those crazies with the signs who need a shower and a job).
#8. Once you understand that your presupposition is fairly convoluted and mixed up and PROBABLY wrong. The likelyhood, in light of the evidence, that YOUR particular view of christianity (I'm assuming) is correct, is very little. Which is one of your happy arguments against evolution. But, I mean I guess it COULD be. No way to prove it. As evidenced by an earlier's poster claim that the world began 30-40 years ago.
#9. For all this talk of probability. The basic fact is, that evolution is the MOST LIKELY answer as to how the current diversity of life came to be.
#1. If you want to argue things from a book, you should do a little research into the history and writing of the book. I imagine you know very little about the archeological history of Israel. Also, I imagine you wouldn't accept it anyhow. Not that you'd have any reason to.
#2. Why do you believe in God? Perchance cause your parents believed in God? Are your beliefs identical to theirs? Just an interesting parallel.
#3. An interesting fact, I did not notice anyone argue against evolution and NOT argue for God.
#4. Something interesting... You guys like to say IMPROBABLE, IMPROBABLE... While I think this has been adequately dealt with by previous posters, EVERYTHING that happens is highly improbable. If you went back 10 years, and were curious if some group of carbon molecules residing in some barley grain in Ukraine would end up getting depositied on this keyboard as I type... Well, its highly unlikely. Doesn't mean something like that isn't happening.
#5. Theological belief is not science. That's why you need the word faith. The basic problem is that you ASSUME God exists. Its sort of a P->Q thing. If P is false, then Q is ALWAYS true.
#6. Also, one doesn't need to examine very many of these types of arguments to see a trend. God makes volcanoes.... oh, um, well, I guess he doesn't then huh? God makes the rain... Oh, yeah, good point, wel, um.. God makes babies. Good try there Mary... God made humans... Well, evolution IS an awfully good theory God made the universe! HA HA HA, WE GOT YOU!!
Just cause we HAVEN'T figured it out yet, just cause you can disprove a theory, does not, in anyways, make yours right. That's the equivalent of being, 2+2=5. Nope, 2+2=4, therefore, there's this crazy dude in the sky that causes women to not want to have sex with me unless I'm nice...
#7. Oooh, a MAGIC number. Anyhow, if you follow the history of religion, and read any scholorly work about when the bible was written (end of the late bronze) why it was written (for Judah to claim ownership of Israel after the Assyrians withdrew to defend against the rebelling babylonians), why its bullshit (cause king Josiah was SUPPOSED to be the messiah, but Jerusalem got whacked by Babylon), and some basic definition of terms, Messiah had nothing to do with a divine creature. It simply meant future leader of Isreal, which, by definition would include Sharon and not Jesus. Also, the widely held scholarly belief that Jesus referred to the Son of Man not as himself, but some divine being, and that he was just a random first century apocalyptic prophet who thought the world was gonna end in the next few years (much like those crazies with the signs who need a shower and a job).
#8. Once you understand that your presupposition is fairly convoluted and mixed up and PROBABLY wrong. The likelyhood, in light of the evidence, that YOUR particular view of christianity (I'm assuming) is correct, is very little. Which is one of your happy arguments against evolution. But, I mean I guess it COULD be. No way to prove it. As evidenced by an earlier's poster claim that the world began 30-40 years ago.
#9. For all this talk of probability. The basic fact is, that evolution is the MOST LIKELY answer as to how the current diversity of life came to be.
Very depressing.
Explain something to me....
What is the one basic 'fact' that the evolutionary theory is based on?
Please, short and sweet, one sentence.
SoLoved
Explain something to me....
What is the one basic 'fact' that the evolutionary theory is based on?
Please, short and sweet, one sentence.
SoLoved
The very extensive fossil record.
SoLoved -
I find it hilarious and very predictable that you don't even know the argument. I know the ID argument very well, since one should ALWAYS know one's enemy. I will tell you since you are obviously way too weak to even look it up:
Evolution is a bimodal model, with it's two modes being 1) mutation and 2) speciation. Mutation occurs either endogenously (randomly or not) or exogenously - through environmental chemicals, etc. but regardless of the source, ends up in speciation. Speciation occurs usually through geographic isolation. Organisms adapt using either or both of the modes, depending on a variety of factors like food supply.
Food supply is the most prominent one, since when Darwin assiduously noted the finch-beak sizes on the Galapagos archipelago, he found that they differed depending on the primary food source for the finch species. This also brought about the concept of 'niches', which of course exist to this day, since the 2 ideas are complementary as well as PROVABLE and REPRODUCIBLE.
The fact that you never even took the time to understand the evolutionary model, much less even know what the constructs are, I find repugnant. You disgust me. You have allowed your blind adherence to religion supplant your intelligence.
-angrily spinning solids
I find it hilarious and very predictable that you don't even know the argument. I know the ID argument very well, since one should ALWAYS know one's enemy. I will tell you since you are obviously way too weak to even look it up:
Evolution is a bimodal model, with it's two modes being 1) mutation and 2) speciation. Mutation occurs either endogenously (randomly or not) or exogenously - through environmental chemicals, etc. but regardless of the source, ends up in speciation. Speciation occurs usually through geographic isolation. Organisms adapt using either or both of the modes, depending on a variety of factors like food supply.
Food supply is the most prominent one, since when Darwin assiduously noted the finch-beak sizes on the Galapagos archipelago, he found that they differed depending on the primary food source for the finch species. This also brought about the concept of 'niches', which of course exist to this day, since the 2 ideas are complementary as well as PROVABLE and REPRODUCIBLE.
The fact that you never even took the time to understand the evolutionary model, much less even know what the constructs are, I find repugnant. You disgust me. You have allowed your blind adherence to religion supplant your intelligence.
-angrily spinning solids
Adoucette, thats an excellent exposition of the explaination of how the age of the Earth is figured by half life dating. I was always at wits end to come up with a way to explain it in my classes so everyone could understand. At least now everyone EXCEPT the Bible thumpers will have a plausible explanation as to why we know we live on an ancient Earth.
Thank You!
Thank You!
QUOTE (solidspin+Aug 29 2005, 10:48 PM)
SoLoved -
I find it hilarious and very predictable that you don't even know the argument. I know the ID argument very well, since one should ALWAYS know one's enemy. I will tell you since you are obviously way too weak to even look it up:
Evolution is a bimodal model, with it's two modes being 1) mutation and 2) speciation. Mutation occurs either endogenously (randomly or not) or exogenously - through environmental chemicals, etc. but regardless of the source, ends up in speciation. Speciation occurs usually through geographic isolation. Organisms adapt using either or both of the modes, depending on a variety of factors like food supply.
Food supply is the most prominent one, since when Darwin assiduously noted the finch-beak sizes on the Galapagos archipelago, he found that they differed depending on the primary food source for the finch species. This also brought about the concept of 'niches', which of course exist to this day, since the 2 ideas are complementary as well as PROVABLE and REPRODUCIBLE.
The fact that you never even took the time to understand the evolutionary model, much less even know what the constructs are, I find repugnant. You disgust me. You have allowed your blind adherence to religion supplant your intelligence.
-angrily spinning solids
solidspin,
The question I asked was:
"What is the one basic 'fact' that the evolutionary theory is based on?
Please, short and sweet, one sentence."
Do you always put people in a box? Do you always have this much trouble following directions?
I know very well what what your evolutionary theory is. What I'm trying to do is set up an intelligently designed argument one 'fact' at a time.
Being an ID'er on a science board can be rather trying and time consuming; so many questions, so little time.
It will be easier for us all and much more diplomatic if we proceed from the, ah....beginning.
CactusCritter.
Thank you - I'll get back to you shortly. Stay tuned. I know , you can't wait.
Have a good day,
SoLoved
I find it hilarious and very predictable that you don't even know the argument. I know the ID argument very well, since one should ALWAYS know one's enemy. I will tell you since you are obviously way too weak to even look it up:
Evolution is a bimodal model, with it's two modes being 1) mutation and 2) speciation. Mutation occurs either endogenously (randomly or not) or exogenously - through environmental chemicals, etc. but regardless of the source, ends up in speciation. Speciation occurs usually through geographic isolation. Organisms adapt using either or both of the modes, depending on a variety of factors like food supply.
Food supply is the most prominent one, since when Darwin assiduously noted the finch-beak sizes on the Galapagos archipelago, he found that they differed depending on the primary food source for the finch species. This also brought about the concept of 'niches', which of course exist to this day, since the 2 ideas are complementary as well as PROVABLE and REPRODUCIBLE.
The fact that you never even took the time to understand the evolutionary model, much less even know what the constructs are, I find repugnant. You disgust me. You have allowed your blind adherence to religion supplant your intelligence.
-angrily spinning solids
solidspin,
The question I asked was:
"What is the one basic 'fact' that the evolutionary theory is based on?
Please, short and sweet, one sentence."
Do you always put people in a box? Do you always have this much trouble following directions?
I know very well what what your evolutionary theory is. What I'm trying to do is set up an intelligently designed argument one 'fact' at a time.
Being an ID'er on a science board can be rather trying and time consuming; so many questions, so little time.
It will be easier for us all and much more diplomatic if we proceed from the, ah....beginning.
CactusCritter.
Thank you - I'll get back to you shortly. Stay tuned. I know
, you can't wait.Have a good day,
SoLoved
SoLoved -
How did you miss it? Do you always have this much trouble processing something that is above the 6th grade?
The facts are the observations Darwin made of finch-beak size and morphology, relative to the types of foods they were eating, which then correlated to 'niches' and then subsequently, his continued observations about other flora/fauna on the archipelago.
There, one sentence - a run-on sentence, but still - is that simple enough for you? Yes, I can easily categorize simpletons such as yourself, since you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about science.
Think about this. Would you ever defend yourself in a court of law? No, since you're not an attorney. My attorney tells me this all the time - and I LISTEN TO HIM.
- angrily spinning solids
How did you miss it? Do you always have this much trouble processing something that is above the 6th grade?
The facts are the observations Darwin made of finch-beak size and morphology, relative to the types of foods they were eating, which then correlated to 'niches' and then subsequently, his continued observations about other flora/fauna on the archipelago.
There, one sentence - a run-on sentence, but still - is that simple enough for you? Yes, I can easily categorize simpletons such as yourself, since you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about science.
Think about this. Would you ever defend yourself in a court of law? No, since you're not an attorney. My attorney tells me this all the time - and I LISTEN TO HIM.
- angrily spinning solids
QUOTE
"What is the one basic 'fact' that the evolutionary theory is based on?
Please, short and sweet, one sentence."
Please, short and sweet, one sentence."
Although it is, of course, impossible to describe any comprehensive science theory in one sentence, here's a very simplistic fact:
Traits that promote survival (and more importantly, reproductive success) will be passed on to the next generation; those that do not, will decrease in abundance.
I don't see how anyone can argue with this. You might complain that this only explains MICROevolution within species and not the MACROevolution of say, entire kingdoms, but new species are simply created when two groups of living things can no longer interbreed (for endless examples of this, see a book such as "Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions").
If you believe that someone is shaping the path evolution takes, that's fine. I certainly can't disprove it. But I can say that this belief is not necessary - there's no reason that any supernatural forces need to be involved. The path evolution has taken is slow and full of dead ends, but also beautiful in its simplicity.
Rather than post upon two related forums, this writer attempts to combine two related topics on this forum, posting only at #1.
1 - HARVARD ORIGINS OF LIFE STUDY SHOWS BIAS AGAINST CREATIONISM
2 - What are the "holes" in evolutionary theory?, Describe "holes" in evolutionary theory
1 - HARVARD ORIGINS OF LIFE STUDY SHOWS BIAS AGAINST CREATIONISM
2 - What are the "holes" in evolutionary theory?, Describe "holes" in evolutionary theory
gadfly -
All the threads are about the same nonsene - it's difficult to stem the tide of ignorance, you know?
-ss
All the threads are about the same nonsene - it's difficult to stem the tide of ignorance, you know?
-ss
soloved
My one sentence explanation of Evolution:
The study of the fossil record of changes in lifeforms, the systematic classification of those changes showing the progression from one species to another throughout the history of life on Earth and the study of the causes of those changes.
Good enough for you?
Of course this is an extremely simplified definition, hopefully you will be able to understand it.
My one sentence explanation of Evolution:
The study of the fossil record of changes in lifeforms, the systematic classification of those changes showing the progression from one species to another throughout the history of life on Earth and the study of the causes of those changes.
Good enough for you?
Of course this is an extremely simplified definition, hopefully you will be able to understand it.
The question I asked was:
"What is the one basic 'fact' that the evolutionary theory is based on?
Please, short and sweet, one sentence."
CactusCritter answers:
Although it is, of course, impossible to describe any comprehensive science theory in one sentence, here's a very simplistic fact:
Traits that promote survival (and more importantly, reproductive success) will be passed on to the next generation; those that do not, will decrease in abundance.
I don't see how anyone can argue with this. You might complain that this only explains MICROevolution within species and not the MACROevolution of say, entire kingdoms, but new species are simply created when two groups of living things can no longer interbreed (for endless examples of this, see a book such as "Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions").
If you believe that someone is shaping the path evolution takes, that's fine. I certainly can't disprove it. But I can say that this belief is not necessary - there's no reason that any supernatural forces need to be involved. The path evolution has taken is slow and full of dead ends, but also beautiful in its simplicity.
Hidden_Tiger,
The only way that your theory holds water is if you continue to insist that the earth is beelions and beelions of years old and ignore the telling facts of the last 6,000 years.
If we assume that the creation story is correct then your answer would contradict nature.
If man were created about 6,000 years ago then it is obvious to everyone that micro or macro evolution has not taken place at all. The various races are explained by melanin—the amount produced is passed down through the genes. We are not born with a genetically fixed amount of melanin. Rather, we have a genetically fixed potential to produce a certain amount, and the amount increases in response to sunlight exposure.
Virtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people groups did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from the same original population.
Your statement: 'Traits that promote survival (and more importantly, reproductive success)....' ....now how does that fit in with homosexuality?
If humans evolved 100,000 years ago (I'm trying to find out how old evolutionists say that man in today's form is - is this right?) -then there could be considerably more microevolution taking place. But generally speaking the only real differences that have been found are size, which again, is realted to diet and nutritional factors.
Hope that answers your question.
Have a good day,
SoLoved
"What is the one basic 'fact' that the evolutionary theory is based on?
Please, short and sweet, one sentence."
CactusCritter answers:
QUOTE (CactusCritter+Aug 29 2005, 10:36 PM)
The very extensive fossil record.
(Thank you CC for that excellent 'short and sweet' answer)
Grumpy answers:
(Thank you G for that excellent 'short and sweet' answer as well)
Note to solidspin: Until you want to respect those who are different from you and incorporate a little diversity in your life, I will not respond to your condescending ramblings.
My Answer:
Here are some "holes" in evolutionary theory based on your very extensive fossil record:
Evolutionists have never succeeded in answering the question 'is evolution true or not'.
They are more concerned with finding common ancestors or animals that we evolved from.
If a scientist were to seek a research grant - it would never be on the basis of whether evolution happened, it would be on the basis of finding old fossils or mishapen apes.
****************
If the similar = evolutionary ancestry is used, the evolutionist will tend to conveniently ignore the data that doesn't fit with their theories.
**************
Major holes regarding the age of the earth and fossils:
Polystrate fossils—tree trunks running through strata supposedly representing many millions of years (these are common in coal) show that the strata must have been deposited in quick succession, otherwise the tops of the tree trunks would have rotted away.
Delicate surface features preserved on underlying rock units, such as ripple marks and footprints, indicate that there was no long time gap before the next unit was deposited.
Lack of fossilized soil layers in the rock strata, indicating no long time gaps.
Lack of erosion features in the rock layers or between the rock units (any significant time break would result in channels being formed in the exposed strata from the action of water or wind).
Limited extent of unconformities. Although unconformities (clear breaks in deposition) indicate time breaks, such unconformities are localized, with no break evident in rocks of the same strata elsewhere, thus indicating that any time break was localized and brief.
Clastic dykes and pipes—where a sand/water mixture has squeezed up through overlying layers. Although the underlying sand is supposed to be millions of years older than the overlying layers, it obviously did not have time to harden.
The study of the fossil record, of changes in lifeforms, the systematic classification of those changes showing the progression from one species to another throughout the history of life on Earth and the study of the causes of those changes has never resulted in a convincing demonstration of those changes. Any significant changes in size or shape within the same species is directly attributable to improved or worsening diet and nutritional factors.
********************************
Vertebrate fossils are more and more rare compared with invertebrate sea creatures.
Most of the fossil records are of invertebrate sea creatures and plant material in the form of coal and oil. Vertebrate fossils are relatively rare and human fossils are even more rare.
Dead animals will not fossilize in the ocean or out in the open under normal circumstances. Their scattered bones do not lie around long enough to be covered by sediment. Special conditions are needed to form fossils, especially to
preserve the bones in their correct orientation. The creature has to be buried quickly to protect it from marine or land scavengers. A worldwide flood, with receding waters that leave behind mud, soot and other debris could explain
fossilized creatures.
A similar event is occuring right now in the Gulf Coast, particularily in the New Orleans area where 80% of the city is flooded. What is happening now is similar to what happened during the world wide flood. As (if) the debris settles
on the earth there will most certainly be dead creatures that will be trapped in layers and layers of mud, soot, oil, and miscellaneous debris. And just imagine, all this in less than 24 hours. Now imagine what those creatures would look
like (if the entire area is not dug up and rebuilt) in 4000 years or so.
It should be very obvious to everyone who is currently witnessing the tragic events in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, how easy it is to flood an area, how easy it is for quick death to occur, and how quickly the whole area is covered in mud, soot, and other debris. Land is torn apart, broken up and redistributed, layer upon layer. And all so quickly.
We are also seeing the 'evolution' of football stadiums. No longer just for football, they now serve the dual purpose of providing shelter for the homeless victims of this weeks flood in the southern US. The SuperDome in NewOrleans and the AstroDome in Houston have evolved.
*******************************
The evidence of the fossil record is very consistent with catastrophism, and it certainly fits the results one would expect from a worldwide flood such as the Flood of Noah.
The evolutionist has great difficulty reconciling evolution with the fossil record.
*******************************
Modern evolutionists (beginning around 1981) are now saying that the fossil records are not as important to evolution as they once were.
From the New Scientist, 25 June 1981, in the article titled ‘Who doubts Evolution’:
‘The Evidence for Evolution simply does not depend upon the fossil record’. and 'A major source of confusion in analyzing the creationist argument is the muddling of the distinction between evolution as fact versus evolution as theory'.
Here we can surmise that the intent now is to try and legitimize their theory by claiming it is a fact, without facts to back it up.
This is demonstrated time and time again right in this very forum.
The laws of probability demonstrate that chance does not allow for evolution to take place. Probability is inexplicable and this is why evolutionists refuse to backtrack to an intelligent designer.
*******************************
Closing thoughts on this post:
My goal here is to have an intelligent debate, or discussion, on the most believed in, or important, foundations of evolution. You're looking for holes, I aim to please.
I ask you, again in one short and sweet sentence:
What is another basic 'fact' that the evolutionary theory is based on?
Have a good day,
SoLoved
I assert that the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and the noblest driving force behind scientific research.
Albert Einstein
(Thank you CC for that excellent 'short and sweet' answer)
Grumpy answers:
QUOTE
Grumpy, Aug 31, 2005, My one sentence explanation of Evolution:
The study of the fossil record of changes in lifeforms, the systematic classification of those changes showing the progression from one species to another throughout the history of life on Earth and the study of the causes of those changes.
The study of the fossil record of changes in lifeforms, the systematic classification of those changes showing the progression from one species to another throughout the history of life on Earth and the study of the causes of those changes.
(Thank you G for that excellent 'short and sweet' answer as well)
Note to solidspin: Until you want to respect those who are different from you and incorporate a little diversity in your life, I will not respond to your condescending ramblings.
My Answer:
Here are some "holes" in evolutionary theory based on your very extensive fossil record:Evolutionists have never succeeded in answering the question 'is evolution true or not'.
They are more concerned with finding common ancestors or animals that we evolved from.
If a scientist were to seek a research grant - it would never be on the basis of whether evolution happened, it would be on the basis of finding old fossils or mishapen apes.
****************
If the similar = evolutionary ancestry is used, the evolutionist will tend to conveniently ignore the data that doesn't fit with their theories.
**************
Major holes regarding the age of the earth and fossils:
Polystrate fossils—tree trunks running through strata supposedly representing many millions of years (these are common in coal) show that the strata must have been deposited in quick succession, otherwise the tops of the tree trunks would have rotted away.
Delicate surface features preserved on underlying rock units, such as ripple marks and footprints, indicate that there was no long time gap before the next unit was deposited.
Lack of fossilized soil layers in the rock strata, indicating no long time gaps.
Lack of erosion features in the rock layers or between the rock units (any significant time break would result in channels being formed in the exposed strata from the action of water or wind).
Limited extent of unconformities. Although unconformities (clear breaks in deposition) indicate time breaks, such unconformities are localized, with no break evident in rocks of the same strata elsewhere, thus indicating that any time break was localized and brief.
Clastic dykes and pipes—where a sand/water mixture has squeezed up through overlying layers. Although the underlying sand is supposed to be millions of years older than the overlying layers, it obviously did not have time to harden.
The study of the fossil record, of changes in lifeforms, the systematic classification of those changes showing the progression from one species to another throughout the history of life on Earth and the study of the causes of those changes has never resulted in a convincing demonstration of those changes. Any significant changes in size or shape within the same species is directly attributable to improved or worsening diet and nutritional factors.
********************************
Vertebrate fossils are more and more rare compared with invertebrate sea creatures.
Most of the fossil records are of invertebrate sea creatures and plant material in the form of coal and oil. Vertebrate fossils are relatively rare and human fossils are even more rare.
Dead animals will not fossilize in the ocean or out in the open under normal circumstances. Their scattered bones do not lie around long enough to be covered by sediment. Special conditions are needed to form fossils, especially to
preserve the bones in their correct orientation. The creature has to be buried quickly to protect it from marine or land scavengers. A worldwide flood, with receding waters that leave behind mud, soot and other debris could explain
fossilized creatures.
A similar event is occuring right now in the Gulf Coast, particularily in the New Orleans area where 80% of the city is flooded. What is happening now is similar to what happened during the world wide flood. As (if) the debris settles
on the earth there will most certainly be dead creatures that will be trapped in layers and layers of mud, soot, oil, and miscellaneous debris. And just imagine, all this in less than 24 hours. Now imagine what those creatures would look
like (if the entire area is not dug up and rebuilt) in 4000 years or so.
It should be very obvious to everyone who is currently witnessing the tragic events in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, how easy it is to flood an area, how easy it is for quick death to occur, and how quickly the whole area is covered in mud, soot, and other debris. Land is torn apart, broken up and redistributed, layer upon layer. And all so quickly.
We are also seeing the 'evolution' of football stadiums. No longer just for football, they now serve the dual purpose of providing shelter for the homeless victims of this weeks flood in the southern US. The SuperDome in NewOrleans and the AstroDome in Houston have evolved.*******************************
The evidence of the fossil record is very consistent with catastrophism, and it certainly fits the results one would expect from a worldwide flood such as the Flood of Noah.
The evolutionist has great difficulty reconciling evolution with the fossil record.
*******************************
Modern evolutionists (beginning around 1981) are now saying that the fossil records are not as important to evolution as they once were.
From the New Scientist, 25 June 1981, in the article titled ‘Who doubts Evolution’:
‘The Evidence for Evolution simply does not depend upon the fossil record’. and 'A major source of confusion in analyzing the creationist argument is the muddling of the distinction between evolution as fact versus evolution as theory'.
Here we can surmise that the intent now is to try and legitimize their theory by claiming it is a fact, without facts to back it up.
This is demonstrated time and time again right in this very forum.
The laws of probability demonstrate that chance does not allow for evolution to take place. Probability is inexplicable and this is why evolutionists refuse to backtrack to an intelligent designer.
*******************************
Closing thoughts on this post:
My goal here is to have an intelligent debate, or discussion, on the most believed in, or important, foundations of evolution. You're looking for holes, I aim to please.
I ask you, again in one short and sweet sentence:
What is another basic 'fact' that the evolutionary theory is based on?Have a good day,
SoLoved I assert that the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and the noblest driving force behind scientific research. Albert Einstein
QUOTE (Hidden_Tiger+Aug 30 2005, 06:38 PM)
QUOTE
"SoLoved asks: What is the one basic 'fact' that the evolutionary theory is based on?
Please, short and sweet, one sentence."
Please, short and sweet, one sentence."
Although it is, of course, impossible to describe any comprehensive science theory in one sentence, here's a very simplistic fact:
Traits that promote survival (and more importantly, reproductive success) will be passed on to the next generation; those that do not, will decrease in abundance.
I don't see how anyone can argue with this. You might complain that this only explains MICROevolution within species and not the MACROevolution of say, entire kingdoms, but new species are simply created when two groups of living things can no longer interbreed (for endless examples of this, see a book such as "Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions").
If you believe that someone is shaping the path evolution takes, that's fine. I certainly can't disprove it. But I can say that this belief is not necessary - there's no reason that any supernatural forces need to be involved. The path evolution has taken is slow and full of dead ends, but also beautiful in its simplicity.
Hidden_Tiger,
The only way that your theory holds water is if you continue to insist that the earth is beelions and beelions of years old and ignore the telling facts of the last 6,000 years.If we assume that the creation story is correct then your answer would contradict nature.
If man were created about 6,000 years ago then it is obvious to everyone that micro or macro evolution has not taken place at all. The various races are explained by melanin—the amount produced is passed down through the genes. We are not born with a genetically fixed amount of melanin. Rather, we have a genetically fixed potential to produce a certain amount, and the amount increases in response to sunlight exposure.
Virtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people groups did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from the same original population.
Your statement: 'Traits that promote survival (and more importantly, reproductive success)....' ....now how does that fit in with homosexuality?
If humans evolved 100,000 years ago (I'm trying to find out how old evolutionists say that man in today's form is - is this right?) -then there could be considerably more microevolution taking place. But generally speaking the only real differences that have been found are size, which again, is realted to diet and nutritional factors.
Hope that answers your question.
Have a good day,
SoLoved
Polystrate fossils have been known for over 100 years. Their existance does not invalidate evolution as any geologist will tell you.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polystrate.html
Arthur
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polystrate.html
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 1 2005, 05:27 AM)
Polystrate fossils have been known for over 100 years. Their existance does not invalidate evolution as any geologist will tell you.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polystrate.html
Arthur
adoucette,
This is a quote from your quoted source:
"These fossils are reasonably common, and have been mentioned in the scientific literature for well over a century, under the name upright fossils or in situ trees. No well-read geologist finds them surprising, and no geologist has ever claimed that it took millions (or even thousands) of years to bury them. Science is perfectly happy with the idea that deposition is occasionally rapid. "
Yay, we agree on something.
Shouldn't you be sleeping?
G'night
SoLoved
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polystrate.html
Arthur
adoucette,
This is a quote from your quoted source:
"These fossils are reasonably common, and have been mentioned in the scientific literature for well over a century, under the name upright fossils or in situ trees. No well-read geologist finds them surprising, and no geologist has ever claimed that it took millions (or even thousands) of years to bury them. Science is perfectly happy with the idea that deposition is occasionally rapid. "
Yay, we agree on something. Shouldn't you be sleeping? G'nightSoLoved
SoLoved, posted Sep 1 2005, 05:17 AM, another list of pseudo and misinformed claims about evolution.
The subject of polystrate fossils was dealt adequately, IMHO, by the URL posted by Adoucette, Sep 1 2005, 05:27 AM.
So far as macroevolution is concerned, there is a striking example in "Evolution, scond edition" by Mark Ridley, Blackwell Science, 1996. On pages 582-587, there is a 40 million year evolutionary sequence described during which a series of fossils show how certain reptiles changed into mammals. The evidence has to do "... with locomotion and feeding because these are sim[;y related to th eforms of preserved cones and teeth. ... Mammalian teeth have a complex, multicusped structure and afe differentiated dosn the jaw in canines, molars, and so on. In contrast, reptilian teeth form a relatively undifferentiated row and have a simpler structure. The top and bottom of the reptilian jaw articulates (that is, hinges)at the back where it has muscles that simply snap it shut. The mammalian jaw has cheek muscle sthat surround the cheek teeth and enable the jaw to close more powerfully and accurately than the reptile's. At the point of jaw articulation moved forward in mammalian evolution, the bones at the rear of the jaw became evolutionarily liberated and went on to evolve into the ear bones ..." [I have not sought Professor Ridley's permission to use the above quotes and can only hope that it represents "fair use" inasmuch as I profit not at all and am attempting to educate some folks.]
The question of what fossilizes and when is repeatedly raised and grows tiresome. Small critters that have hard body parts and generate huge populations are naturally going to appear in greater numbers in the fossil record. Much larger critters have much smaller populations and have, mostly, no hard exterior to protect the soft goodies on which scavengers and bacteria can make a living.
The subject of polystrate fossils was dealt adequately, IMHO, by the URL posted by Adoucette, Sep 1 2005, 05:27 AM.
So far as macroevolution is concerned, there is a striking example in "Evolution, scond edition" by Mark Ridley, Blackwell Science, 1996. On pages 582-587, there is a 40 million year evolutionary sequence described during which a series of fossils show how certain reptiles changed into mammals. The evidence has to do "... with locomotion and feeding because these are sim[;y related to th eforms of preserved cones and teeth. ... Mammalian teeth have a complex, multicusped structure and afe differentiated dosn the jaw in canines, molars, and so on. In contrast, reptilian teeth form a relatively undifferentiated row and have a simpler structure. The top and bottom of the reptilian jaw articulates (that is, hinges)at the back where it has muscles that simply snap it shut. The mammalian jaw has cheek muscle sthat surround the cheek teeth and enable the jaw to close more powerfully and accurately than the reptile's. At the point of jaw articulation moved forward in mammalian evolution, the bones at the rear of the jaw became evolutionarily liberated and went on to evolve into the ear bones ..." [I have not sought Professor Ridley's permission to use the above quotes and can only hope that it represents "fair use" inasmuch as I profit not at all and am attempting to educate some folks.]
The question of what fossilizes and when is repeatedly raised and grows tiresome. Small critters that have hard body parts and generate huge populations are naturally going to appear in greater numbers in the fossil record. Much larger critters have much smaller populations and have, mostly, no hard exterior to protect the soft goodies on which scavengers and bacteria can make a living.
I've just found this forum and this topic and I was thrilled because I was needing this discussion for a long time.
I'm a Chemistry Student (at the last year of the University) and so my point of view if science/evolution oriented.
I've read most of the posts entirely and a few I read a part of it. I'll try to debate the points I think still weren't discussed well and hope to bring a different (yet interestingly debatable) opinion to this.
I'll try to quote every thing I answer to.
A long while ago dCalvin said:
The answer that has been used is like the one that says that a infinite number of monkeys and an infinite amout of time (actually you only need one of the infinites) would produce every concievable text ever written and to be written.
I'd like to point to another way. We all (evolutionists) assume that life began in a less complex way and then evolved into greater complexity. So, assuming this, we can explain how proteins formed by assuming mutations. Many mutations will end up being disastrous and end the life form that was going to be created. Yet, others end up adding an interesting feature. So the complexity of a protein isn't necessarily extremely specialized from the beginning of the world.
A way to see it in a todays situation would be like thinking of a world where everyone would be infected with AIDS. Those that have the mutation that prevents AIDS virus from entering their T-cells would survive, the others would die. That's evolution, survival of the fittest (yet Darwin didn't use this phrase). Then, the virus would mutate (if it had time) to use another tipe of infection mechanism, otherwise it would also disappear (more evolution).
CactusCritter:
The answer that has been used is like the one that says that a infinite number of monkeys and an infinite amout of time (actually you only need one of the infinites) would produce every concievable text ever written and to be written.
I'd like to point to another way. We all (evolutionists) assume that life began in a less complex way and then evolved into greater complexity. So, assuming this, we can explain how proteins formed by assuming mutations. Many mutations will end up being disastrous and end the life form that was going to be created. Yet, others end up adding an interesting feature. So the complexity of a protein isn't necessarily extremely specialized from the beginning of the world.
A way to see it in a todays situation would be like thinking of a world where everyone would be infected with AIDS. Those that have the mutation that prevents AIDS virus from entering their T-cells would survive, the others would die. That's evolution, survival of the fittest (yet Darwin didn't use this phrase). Then, the virus would mutate (if it had time) to use another tipe of infection mechanism, otherwise it would also disappear (more evolution).
CactusCritter:
Most citations of the third law are erroneous, assuming that entropy must always increase. In fact, that is true only for a closed, isolated system; very hard to find in reality.
There is a small mistake. Closed and isolated systems are different. An isolated system (the only one for which the entropy must always increase) isn't feasible. Only the universe itself is (and can be) isolated. In any other system energy exchange is always present thus the system is (at most) closed and that law of thermodynamics doesn't apply.
yeshua4real:
Evolution is a theory for life, not the universe. Therefore this argument doesn't apply. But there's an inflationary theory for the creation of the universe. Might have heard of it...
yeahua4real:
Evolution is a theory for life, not the universe. Therefore this argument doesn't apply. But there's an inflationary theory for the creation of the universe. Might have heard of it...
yeahua4real:
Certainly most of the code is universal, but this is best explained by common design—one Creator. Of all the millions of genetic codes possible, ours, or something almost like it, is optimal for protecting against errors.
What if that Creator is the Nature itself? If most of the code is universal can't it come from a single original being. And the different code is just mutations that worked...
I'll stop this post here and write another one because this one is getting big and the other one regards only SoLoved posts.
Thanks for this discussion, I was really looking forward to it,
Daniel
3.5 billion years ago,in a hot spring or around a black smoker a protein (made from amino acids delivered by comets and shocked into peptides by the collision with the planets surface, as has been replicated in the laboritory) came into being which was able to assemble a copy of itself from the chemical soup it resided in.
If we use a 24 hour(midnight to midnight) clock to represrnt the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth this event occured at 9:00 in the morning.
The first multi-cellular life appears at 9:00 at night. It took about 2.25 billion years to go from the simple beginnings to what we would call a bacteria.
All the other animals and plants in the fossil record appeared in the last three hours of the 24 hr clock.
Primates appear at three minutes to midnight, man in the last 30 seconds.
This is the story of life on Earth that is amply supported by the evdence gathered by man in the last second of our 24 hrs. You can choose to ignore the evidence and believe any fairy tale you wish but it does not change what we know. Everything I have said in this post is supported by what we have found in the fossil record. It is not in question by any true scientist. We still have much to learn, we don't understand all the processes which caused evolution but no magic was involved, only natural processes.
I'm a Chemistry Student (at the last year of the University) and so my point of view if science/evolution oriented.
I've read most of the posts entirely and a few I read a part of it. I'll try to debate the points I think still weren't discussed well and hope to bring a different (yet interestingly debatable) opinion to this.
I'll try to quote every thing I answer to.
A long while ago dCalvin said:
QUOTE
"I believe it IS statistically improbable, knowing that the random forces going into creating a protein sequence are equal to the random forces going into destroying a protein sequence, let alone the atoms randomly coming together to form the protein sequence, under ideal conditions."
The answer that has been used is like the one that says that a infinite number of monkeys and an infinite amout of time (actually you only need one of the infinites) would produce every concievable text ever written and to be written.
I'd like to point to another way. We all (evolutionists) assume that life began in a less complex way and then evolved into greater complexity. So, assuming this, we can explain how proteins formed by assuming mutations. Many mutations will end up being disastrous and end the life form that was going to be created. Yet, others end up adding an interesting feature. So the complexity of a protein isn't necessarily extremely specialized from the beginning of the world.
A way to see it in a todays situation would be like thinking of a world where everyone would be infected with AIDS. Those that have the mutation that prevents AIDS virus from entering their T-cells would survive, the others would die. That's evolution, survival of the fittest (yet Darwin didn't use this phrase). Then, the virus would mutate (if it had time) to use another tipe of infection mechanism, otherwise it would also disappear (more evolution).
CactusCritter:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I believe it IS statistically improbable, knowing that the random forces going into creating a protein sequence are equal to the random forces going into destroying a protein sequence, let alone the atoms randomly coming together to form the protein sequence, under ideal conditions." |
The answer that has been used is like the one that says that a infinite number of monkeys and an infinite amout of time (actually you only need one of the infinites) would produce every concievable text ever written and to be written.
I'd like to point to another way. We all (evolutionists) assume that life began in a less complex way and then evolved into greater complexity. So, assuming this, we can explain how proteins formed by assuming mutations. Many mutations will end up being disastrous and end the life form that was going to be created. Yet, others end up adding an interesting feature. So the complexity of a protein isn't necessarily extremely specialized from the beginning of the world.
A way to see it in a todays situation would be like thinking of a world where everyone would be infected with AIDS. Those that have the mutation that prevents AIDS virus from entering their T-cells would survive, the others would die. That's evolution, survival of the fittest (yet Darwin didn't use this phrase). Then, the virus would mutate (if it had time) to use another tipe of infection mechanism, otherwise it would also disappear (more evolution).
CactusCritter:
Most citations of the third law are erroneous, assuming that entropy must always increase. In fact, that is true only for a closed, isolated system; very hard to find in reality.
There is a small mistake. Closed and isolated systems are different. An isolated system (the only one for which the entropy must always increase) isn't feasible. Only the universe itself is (and can be) isolated. In any other system energy exchange is always present thus the system is (at most) closed and that law of thermodynamics doesn't apply.
yeshua4real:
QUOTE
By the way, Creationism (or Intelligent Design) explains the existence of the universe, evolution doesn't. Where did it all come from? Where did it all start?
Evolution is a theory for life, not the universe. Therefore this argument doesn't apply. But there's an inflationary theory for the creation of the universe. Might have heard of it...
yeahua4real:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By the way, Creationism (or Intelligent Design) explains the existence of the universe, evolution doesn't. Where did it all come from? Where did it all start? |
Evolution is a theory for life, not the universe. Therefore this argument doesn't apply. But there's an inflationary theory for the creation of the universe. Might have heard of it...
yeahua4real:
Certainly most of the code is universal, but this is best explained by common design—one Creator. Of all the millions of genetic codes possible, ours, or something almost like it, is optimal for protecting against errors.
What if that Creator is the Nature itself? If most of the code is universal can't it come from a single original being. And the different code is just mutations that worked...
I'll stop this post here and write another one because this one is getting big and the other one regards only SoLoved posts.
Thanks for this discussion, I was really looking forward to it,
Daniel
3.5 billion years ago,in a hot spring or around a black smoker a protein (made from amino acids delivered by comets and shocked into peptides by the collision with the planets surface, as has been replicated in the laboritory) came into being which was able to assemble a copy of itself from the chemical soup it resided in.
If we use a 24 hour(midnight to midnight) clock to represrnt the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth this event occured at 9:00 in the morning.
The first multi-cellular life appears at 9:00 at night. It took about 2.25 billion years to go from the simple beginnings to what we would call a bacteria.
All the other animals and plants in the fossil record appeared in the last three hours of the 24 hr clock.
Primates appear at three minutes to midnight, man in the last 30 seconds.
This is the story of life on Earth that is amply supported by the evdence gathered by man in the last second of our 24 hrs. You can choose to ignore the evidence and believe any fairy tale you wish but it does not change what we know. Everything I have said in this post is supported by what we have found in the fossil record. It is not in question by any true scientist. We still have much to learn, we don't understand all the processes which caused evolution but no magic was involved, only natural processes.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 1 2005, 02:37 PM)
3.5 billion years ago,in a hot spring or around a black smoker a protein (made from amino acids delivered by comets and shocked into peptides by the collision with the planets surface, as has been replicated in the laboritory) came into being which was able to assemble a copy of itself from the chemical soup it resided in.
If we use a 24 hour(midnight to midnight) clock to represrnt the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth this event occured at 9:00 in the morning.
The first multi-cellular life appears at 9:00 at night. It took about 2.25 billion years to go from the simple beginnings to what we would call a bacteria.
All the other animals and plants in the fossil record appeared in the last three hours of the 24 hr clock.
Primates appear at three minutes to midnight, man in the last 30 seconds.
This is the story of life on Earth that is amply supported by the evdence gathered by man in the last second of our 24 hrs. You can choose to ignore the evidence and believe any fairy tale you wish but it does not change what we know. Everything I have said in this post is supported by what we have found in the fossil record. It is not in question by any true scientist. We still have much to learn, we don't understand all the processes which caused evolution but no magic was involved, only natural processes.
Grumpy,
Like I've said before, it's interesting to note how similar E findings are to the creation account according to the Bible.
Creation 101: The account of Creation according to the Biblical timeline
(Now how could they possibly have known all this?)
1. Creation of the physical universe (space, time, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.)
2. Transformation of the earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent.
3. Formation of a stable water cycle.
4. Establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s).
5. Production of plants on the continent(s).
6. Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent (Sun, Moon, and stars become visible).
7. Production of small sea animals.
8. Creation of sea mammals.
9. Creation of birds.
10. Making of land mammals (wild mammals, mammals that can be domesticated, and rodents).
11. Creation of mankind - male and female.
What would happen if evolutionists (E) tried to backtrack to an Intelligent Designer(ID)?
It seems to me that what E is trying to do, a noble cause, is to define how humans came to be and/or discover what we are made of. But given that all life contains some similarities, is it not possible that it was designed that way? And the only reason E has a short leg to stand on here is because they can prove similarities. E believes in beelions and beelions of years worth of aging, but cannot prove it. E similarily believe we had a common ancestor (thus the similarities principle).
The evidence is questioned by true scientists. You would not be a true scientist if you did not 'question everything'. But, alas, I agree with you that E scientists do not question E. That's the third time this week I've agreed with y'all.
It is understandable that scientists are left jaded and leery by the dogmatic religions of the world. But this attitude is congruous with nothing except dogmatic science. Although we (in these religions) still believe in our Creator and the biblical account of creation, or at the very least the idea of Intelligent Design; we are much more open minded than ever before. Why, we don't even believe the earth is flat anymore, it must have evolved! LOL - As a matter of fact, we believe there is more to our universe than even space explorers have discovered. We are only amazed, and amused, at the scientists' amazement of a new planet discovery.
Have no fear, there is a spirit of discovery and excitement in the air with every passing day, for we are all learning that from chaos there is order to be found as well.
Good Day,
SoLoved
If we use a 24 hour(midnight to midnight) clock to represrnt the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth this event occured at 9:00 in the morning.
The first multi-cellular life appears at 9:00 at night. It took about 2.25 billion years to go from the simple beginnings to what we would call a bacteria.
All the other animals and plants in the fossil record appeared in the last three hours of the 24 hr clock.
Primates appear at three minutes to midnight, man in the last 30 seconds.
This is the story of life on Earth that is amply supported by the evdence gathered by man in the last second of our 24 hrs. You can choose to ignore the evidence and believe any fairy tale you wish but it does not change what we know. Everything I have said in this post is supported by what we have found in the fossil record. It is not in question by any true scientist. We still have much to learn, we don't understand all the processes which caused evolution but no magic was involved, only natural processes.
Grumpy,
Like I've said before, it's interesting to note how similar E findings are to the creation account according to the Bible.
Creation 101: The account of Creation according to the Biblical timeline
(Now how could they possibly have known all this?)
1. Creation of the physical universe (space, time, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.)
2. Transformation of the earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent.
3. Formation of a stable water cycle.
4. Establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s).
5. Production of plants on the continent(s).
6. Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent (Sun, Moon, and stars become visible).
7. Production of small sea animals.
8. Creation of sea mammals.
9. Creation of birds.
10. Making of land mammals (wild mammals, mammals that can be domesticated, and rodents).
11. Creation of mankind - male and female.
What would happen if evolutionists (E) tried to backtrack to an Intelligent Designer(ID)?
It seems to me that what E is trying to do, a noble cause, is to define how humans came to be and/or discover what we are made of. But given that all life contains some similarities, is it not possible that it was designed that way? And the only reason E has a short leg to stand on here is because they can prove similarities. E believes in beelions and beelions of years worth of aging, but cannot prove it. E similarily believe we had a common ancestor (thus the similarities principle).
The evidence is questioned by true scientists. You would not be a true scientist if you did not 'question everything'. But, alas, I agree with you that E scientists do not question E. That's the third time this week I've agreed with y'all.
It is understandable that scientists are left jaded and leery by the dogmatic religions of the world. But this attitude is congruous with nothing except dogmatic science. Although we (in these religions) still believe in our Creator and the biblical account of creation, or at the very least the idea of Intelligent Design; we are much more open minded than ever before. Why, we don't even believe the earth is flat anymore, it must have evolved!
LOL - As a matter of fact, we believe there is more to our universe than even space explorers have discovered. We are only amazed, and amused, at the scientists' amazement of a new planet discovery.Have no fear, there is a spirit of discovery and excitement in the air with every passing day, for we are all learning that from chaos there is order to be found as well.
Good Day,
SoLoved
More spin SoLoved? Not exactly what is commonly eccepted as the xian bible account of creation.
I do not wish to delve into the discussion of a religion specificaly as such a topic I think is not worthy of this forum, but I must point out that the alteration of the points of the xian creation myth made by SoLoved typifies attempts made to make such myth appear scientifically valid.
According to Christians, God created in the following order:
Day 1: the Sky, the Earth and the light.
Day 2: Water, both in the ocean basins and above the sky.
Day 3: The plants.
Day 4: Sun, moon and stars.
Day 5: Sea monsters, fish, birds, land animals and creepy-crawlies.
Day 6: Humans.
Day 7: nothing. First day off taken on Earth.
Not exactly as it was presented by SoLoved.
I do not wish to delve into the discussion of a religion specificaly as such a topic I think is not worthy of this forum, but I must point out that the alteration of the points of the xian creation myth made by SoLoved typifies attempts made to make such myth appear scientifically valid.
According to Christians, God created in the following order:
Day 1: the Sky, the Earth and the light.
Day 2: Water, both in the ocean basins and above the sky.
Day 3: The plants.
Day 4: Sun, moon and stars.
Day 5: Sea monsters, fish, birds, land animals and creepy-crawlies.
Day 6: Humans.
Day 7: nothing. First day off taken on Earth.
Not exactly as it was presented by SoLoved.
Although the creationism isn't even plausible to me, I understand that others accept it and assume it as being the truth. What I don't like is when things like this are said (SoLoved):
This one-sidedness really annoys me, because as a evolutionist I don't mind when the priest says that God created everything in 7 days. There are facts that support evolution (fossils, extinct animals, slight variations of morphology). What about creationism? What proofs are there of it being real? Besides of those on religious records...
Here comes a few items from that table of 11 arguments against Evolution.
This one-sidedness really annoys me, because as a evolutionist I don't mind when the priest says that God created everything in 7 days. There are facts that support evolution (fossils, extinct animals, slight variations of morphology). What about creationism? What proofs are there of it being real? Besides of those on religious records...
Here comes a few items from that table of 11 arguments against Evolution.
Inability to prove that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.
This has been more than proved using radioactive decay as an argument. But we can also use the ice in the South Pole to get a record of yearly record of the climate for far more than 10,000 years.
Not in the scope of the theory of evolution, it's like saying it does not explain how the universe started. It doesn't concern this theory.
Not in the scope of the theory of evolution, it's like saying it does not explain how the universe started. It doesn't concern this theory.
Inability to accept any other pre-suppositions than their own - such as in the beginning God.... - this puts the whole evolution theory at risk because you break your own rules, which are to consider all the evidence (...)
If the objective is to determine what was there in the beginning, if we accept that in the beginning was God that created all sorts of things then there isn't much to discuss about it.
Yes, so? And what do you think, everything was made with you in mind? We are travelling to the destruction of our own planet due to toxic residues, ozone layer depletion, increase in the green-house effect and a lot of other things. If everything was meant to lead to us, then why are we destroying it? (Oh, I know, free will, I can choose whatever we want, whether to kill or let live, whether to destroy or preserve...)
Yes, so? And what do you think, everything was made with you in mind? We are travelling to the destruction of our own planet due to toxic residues, ozone layer depletion, increase in the green-house effect and a lot of other things. If everything was meant to lead to us, then why are we destroying it? (Oh, I know, free will, I can choose whatever we want, whether to kill or let live, whether to destroy or preserve...)
Evolution is contrary to the word of God.
It has been said before, but I think it must be said again. The evolution theory is independent of God, so this can't be seen as a hole in the theory.
And he wasn't the only scientist to do it. Have you heard of Mendel, the father of Genetics? He lived in a monastery and had limited tools to proceed his work. He made experiments with green and yellow peas and got to values of green and yellow
descendants that can't be right just because working with polen of plants with the technology he had available couldn't make it right all the time. Yet, is the fact that he understood and could explain the pattern that was shown to him (even disregarding some cases that didn't fit is model) that gave birth to modern genetics. Yes, he certainly lied (the probability of it all going exactly as he said is very very low) but that doesn't make what he said a lie.
And he wasn't the only scientist to do it. Have you heard of Mendel, the father of Genetics? He lived in a monastery and had limited tools to proceed his work. He made experiments with green and yellow peas and got to values of green and yellow
descendants that can't be right just because working with polen of plants with the technology he had available couldn't make it right all the time. Yet, is the fact that he understood and could explain the pattern that was shown to him (even disregarding some cases that didn't fit is model) that gave birth to modern genetics. Yes, he certainly lied (the probability of it all going exactly as he said is very very low) but that doesn't make what he said a lie.
Evolution does not fill the hole in you.
Well, that depends on everyone, but it fills me! I'm quite happier knowing that I was a random event (among millions of other random events) rather than having a God creating everything and in the beginning of times knowing I'd come. That would raise me other question, who had raised Him. But to that you say God is timeless...
I seriously doubt what you take for granted... Where does this takes us then.
I seriously doubt what you take for granted... Where does this takes us then.
Evolutionists have never succeeded in answering the question 'is evolution true or not'.
Theories aren't meant to be true, they either correctly explain (and predict) ocurring facts or don't. If they do they WORK, otherwise they don't.
Are you going to say that the Newton's theory is false? Einstein's theory of relativity is certainly right. But for velocities well under the c value the Newton's theory works perfectly well and I used it for all the calculations I ever did. So it isn't wrong... Is it right? Well, it doesn't work near the speed of light. So it's wrong... How do we take it? Well, for the range of its aplicability it is right and will always be right. Yet, for certain special cases a better theory is needed. So evolution is a possible theory. Is it correct? Well, until proven in contrary it matches all that it is supposed.
What about Creationism? Is it true or not? Will you say it is true because God says so? Thanks, but that doesn't fill my hole!
There are anaerobic systems that could have protected a system from being destroy by oxygen. A tree that fell into a swamp would be preserved for a much longer time. (If I understood your point...)
There are anaerobic systems that could have protected a system from being destroy by oxygen. A tree that fell into a swamp would be preserved for a much longer time. (If I understood your point...)
The evidence of the fossil record is very consistent with catastrophism, and it certainly fits the results one would expect from a worldwide flood such as the Flood of Noah.
So you mean that the fossil records are related to the Flood of Noah. So, you also mean that the ammonites and the dinossaurs (for which fossils have been found) where killed in the Noah's Flood? That means then, that men and dinossaurs were co-existing back then. If so, in the strats that have dinossaurs we should also have humans. And ammonites should also be at that level, not a lower one, as they are. And if they are all in the same strat then man and dinossaurs are contemporary. And I guess this isn't true, or do you think it is?
That has been discussed and I've made reference to it, even if many mistakes happen, it just takes one right to move on to another level of complexity (which can be seen as evolution). I can't see jow anyone can say that evolution is inexplicable. You see it everyday. How do you think that the bacterias that are resistant to every drug available got to where they are. According to the theory of evolutionism when replicating, some mistakes during mitosis produced unviable specimens and others produced specimens with different resistence (presumably less, as a mistake has more probability of doing bad than good). When the medicine is applied the different specimen survives and the others die. That one then continues replicating and the others disappear. The fact that bacterias acquire drug resistance is a proof of evolution. How do you explain that?
I don't really know if this discussion takes us anywhere. I really haven't seen a good argument against evolutionism. Just that God says so, and evolutionists are stubborn in not accepting that God says so. That isn't an argument!!
Daniel
PS - Sorry if the posts are too long.
PPS - I'll be out of town for the next days so I'll probably miss the next days if this discussion.
QUOTE
Technically, evolution should never be taught in public schools, it is simply not true, factual, real, or even advantageous!
This one-sidedness really annoys me, because as a evolutionist I don't mind when the priest says that God created everything in 7 days. There are facts that support evolution (fossils, extinct animals, slight variations of morphology). What about creationism? What proofs are there of it being real? Besides of those on religious records...
Here comes a few items from that table of 11 arguments against Evolution.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Technically, evolution should never be taught in public schools, it is simply not true, factual, real, or even advantageous! |
This one-sidedness really annoys me, because as a evolutionist I don't mind when the priest says that God created everything in 7 days. There are facts that support evolution (fossils, extinct animals, slight variations of morphology). What about creationism? What proofs are there of it being real? Besides of those on religious records...
Here comes a few items from that table of 11 arguments against Evolution.
Inability to prove that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.
This has been more than proved using radioactive decay as an argument. But we can also use the ice in the South Pole to get a record of yearly record of the climate for far more than 10,000 years.
QUOTE
Inability to explain what time is (...)
Not in the scope of the theory of evolution, it's like saying it does not explain how the universe started. It doesn't concern this theory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Inability to explain what time is (...) |
Not in the scope of the theory of evolution, it's like saying it does not explain how the universe started. It doesn't concern this theory.
Inability to accept any other pre-suppositions than their own - such as in the beginning God.... - this puts the whole evolution theory at risk because you break your own rules, which are to consider all the evidence (...)
If the objective is to determine what was there in the beginning, if we accept that in the beginning was God that created all sorts of things then there isn't much to discuss about it.
QUOTE
The evolutionist believes we are nothing but animals, an accident of cosmic evolution, with no purpose.
Yes, so? And what do you think, everything was made with you in mind? We are travelling to the destruction of our own planet due to toxic residues, ozone layer depletion, increase in the green-house effect and a lot of other things. If everything was meant to lead to us, then why are we destroying it? (Oh, I know, free will, I can choose whatever we want, whether to kill or let live, whether to destroy or preserve...)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The evolutionist believes we are nothing but animals, an accident of cosmic evolution, with no purpose. |
Yes, so? And what do you think, everything was made with you in mind? We are travelling to the destruction of our own planet due to toxic residues, ozone layer depletion, increase in the green-house effect and a lot of other things. If everything was meant to lead to us, then why are we destroying it? (Oh, I know, free will, I can choose whatever we want, whether to kill or let live, whether to destroy or preserve...)
Evolution is contrary to the word of God.
It has been said before, but I think it must be said again. The evolution theory is independent of God, so this can't be seen as a hole in the theory.
QUOTE
Your own community's pro-Darwin biography even tells what a liar and manipulator Darwin could be
And he wasn't the only scientist to do it. Have you heard of Mendel, the father of Genetics? He lived in a monastery and had limited tools to proceed his work. He made experiments with green and yellow peas and got to values of green and yellow
descendants that can't be right just because working with polen of plants with the technology he had available couldn't make it right all the time. Yet, is the fact that he understood and could explain the pattern that was shown to him (even disregarding some cases that didn't fit is model) that gave birth to modern genetics. Yes, he certainly lied (the probability of it all going exactly as he said is very very low) but that doesn't make what he said a lie.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your own community's pro-Darwin biography even tells what a liar and manipulator Darwin could be |
And he wasn't the only scientist to do it. Have you heard of Mendel, the father of Genetics? He lived in a monastery and had limited tools to proceed his work. He made experiments with green and yellow peas and got to values of green and yellow
descendants that can't be right just because working with polen of plants with the technology he had available couldn't make it right all the time. Yet, is the fact that he understood and could explain the pattern that was shown to him (even disregarding some cases that didn't fit is model) that gave birth to modern genetics. Yes, he certainly lied (the probability of it all going exactly as he said is very very low) but that doesn't make what he said a lie.
Evolution does not fill the hole in you.
Well, that depends on everyone, but it fills me! I'm quite happier knowing that I was a random event (among millions of other random events) rather than having a God creating everything and in the beginning of times knowing I'd come. That would raise me other question, who had raised Him. But to that you say God is timeless...
QUOTE
Teaching intelligent design alongside evolution will get people to think and experiment. Who knows, it may work in your favor. I seriously doubt it
I seriously doubt what you take for granted... Where does this takes us then.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Teaching intelligent design alongside evolution will get people to think and experiment. Who knows, it may work in your favor. I seriously doubt it |
I seriously doubt what you take for granted... Where does this takes us then.
Evolutionists have never succeeded in answering the question 'is evolution true or not'.
Theories aren't meant to be true, they either correctly explain (and predict) ocurring facts or don't. If they do they WORK, otherwise they don't.
Are you going to say that the Newton's theory is false? Einstein's theory of relativity is certainly right. But for velocities well under the c value the Newton's theory works perfectly well and I used it for all the calculations I ever did. So it isn't wrong... Is it right? Well, it doesn't work near the speed of light. So it's wrong... How do we take it? Well, for the range of its aplicability it is right and will always be right. Yet, for certain special cases a better theory is needed. So evolution is a possible theory. Is it correct? Well, until proven in contrary it matches all that it is supposed.
What about Creationism? Is it true or not? Will you say it is true because God says so? Thanks, but that doesn't fill my hole!
QUOTE
Polystrate fossils—tree trunks running through strata supposedly representing many millions of years (these are common in coal) show that the strata must have been deposited in quick succession, otherwise the tops of the tree trunks would have rotted away.
There are anaerobic systems that could have protected a system from being destroy by oxygen. A tree that fell into a swamp would be preserved for a much longer time. (If I understood your point...)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Polystrate fossils—tree trunks running through strata supposedly representing many millions of years (these are common in coal) show that the strata must have been deposited in quick succession, otherwise the tops of the tree trunks would have rotted away. |
There are anaerobic systems that could have protected a system from being destroy by oxygen. A tree that fell into a swamp would be preserved for a much longer time. (If I understood your point...)
The evidence of the fossil record is very consistent with catastrophism, and it certainly fits the results one would expect from a worldwide flood such as the Flood of Noah.
So you mean that the fossil records are related to the Flood of Noah. So, you also mean that the ammonites and the dinossaurs (for which fossils have been found) where killed in the Noah's Flood? That means then, that men and dinossaurs were co-existing back then. If so, in the strats that have dinossaurs we should also have humans. And ammonites should also be at that level, not a lower one, as they are. And if they are all in the same strat then man and dinossaurs are contemporary. And I guess this isn't true, or do you think it is?
QUOTE
The laws of probability demonstrate that chance does not allow for evolution to take place. Probability is inexplicable and this is why evolutionists refuse to backtrack to an intelligent designer.
That has been discussed and I've made reference to it, even if many mistakes happen, it just takes one right to move on to another level of complexity (which can be seen as evolution). I can't see jow anyone can say that evolution is inexplicable. You see it everyday. How do you think that the bacterias that are resistant to every drug available got to where they are. According to the theory of evolutionism when replicating, some mistakes during mitosis produced unviable specimens and others produced specimens with different resistence (presumably less, as a mistake has more probability of doing bad than good). When the medicine is applied the different specimen survives and the others die. That one then continues replicating and the others disappear. The fact that bacterias acquire drug resistance is a proof of evolution. How do you explain that?
I don't really know if this discussion takes us anywhere. I really haven't seen a good argument against evolutionism. Just that God says so, and evolutionists are stubborn in not accepting that God says so. That isn't an argument!!
Daniel
PS - Sorry if the posts are too long.
PPS - I'll be out of town for the next days so I'll probably miss the next days if this discussion.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Sep 1 2005, 05:41 PM)
More spin SoLoved? Not exactly what is commonly eccepted as the xian bible account of creation.
I do not wish to delve into the discussion of a religion specificaly as such a topic I think is not worthy of this forum, but I must point out that the alteration of the points of the xian creation myth made by SoLoved typifies attempts made to make such myth appear scientifically valid.
According to Christians, God created in the following order:
Day 1: the Sky, the Earth and the light.
Day 2: Water, both in the ocean basins and above the sky.
Day 3: The plants.
Day 4: Sun, moon and stars.
Day 5: Sea monsters, fish, birds, land animals and creepy-crawlies.
Day 6: Humans.
Day 7: nothing. First day off taken on Earth.
Not exactly as it was presented by SoLoved.
You are describing what happened on Day 1-Day 7. I was describing what was created.
SoLoved
I do not wish to delve into the discussion of a religion specificaly as such a topic I think is not worthy of this forum, but I must point out that the alteration of the points of the xian creation myth made by SoLoved typifies attempts made to make such myth appear scientifically valid.
According to Christians, God created in the following order:
Day 1: the Sky, the Earth and the light.
Day 2: Water, both in the ocean basins and above the sky.
Day 3: The plants.
Day 4: Sun, moon and stars.
Day 5: Sea monsters, fish, birds, land animals and creepy-crawlies.
Day 6: Humans.
Day 7: nothing. First day off taken on Earth.
Not exactly as it was presented by SoLoved.
You are describing what happened on Day 1-Day 7. I was describing what was created.
SoLoved
QUOTE (SoLoved+Sep 1 2005, 05:29 PM)
E believes in beelions and beelions of years worth of aging, but cannot prove it. E similarily believe we had a common ancestor (thus the similarities principle).
Several people here have given proof (using radioactive decay of isotopes with long half-times) that planet Earth is older than 2.4 thousand million years (I'm european).
Why do you keep on saying proof of that age cannot be given?
Several people here have given proof (using radioactive decay of isotopes with long half-times) that planet Earth is older than 2.4 thousand million years (I'm european).
Why do you keep on saying proof of that age cannot be given?
QUOTE (Arrepiadd+Sep 1 2005, 06:04 PM)
Arrepiadd states:
Although the creationism isn't even plausible to me, I understand that others accept it and assume it as being the truth. What I don't like is when things like this are said (SoLoved):
Part of the reason for the seemingly one-sided quotes is to demonstrate the attitude of some of the
E's on this board. They treat ID as a myth and they do so proudly - just see some of the previous
posts blasting ID, and I'm sure there will be more to come.
Please see my in-depth reply on the E theory of 'very extensive fossil records' - just a few posts back.
You state the age of the earth has been proven using radioactive decay.......You believe this, but cannot prove it.
For an example of how quickly things can happen on this earth, I suggest you pay attention to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
You state the age of the earth has been proven using radioactive decay.......You believe this, but cannot prove it.
For an example of how quickly things can happen on this earth, I suggest you pay attention to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
You state: It has been said before, but I think it must be said again. The evolution theory is independent of God, so this can't be seen as a hole in the theory.
Question: Under what circumstances could an E scientist ever find a creator/designer?
and then you proceed to answer your own question. Free will, YOU can and do choose whatever YOU want. YOU and the rest of US
are responsible for OUR own destruction. But it is just like US to not want to be accountable or accept responsibility for our actions. WE are nothing but a bunch spoiled rotten kids!
You state that evolution fills the hole in you. That's fine. Good for you.
We cannot possibly understand timelessness because we have not
experienced it. (that's a rather bold statement on my part and I'm not entirely sure I agree with myself). That does not mean timelessness does not exist.
and then you proceed to answer your own question. Free will, YOU can and do choose whatever YOU want. YOU and the rest of US
are responsible for OUR own destruction. But it is just like US to not want to be accountable or accept responsibility for our actions. WE are nothing but a bunch spoiled rotten kids!
You state that evolution fills the hole in you. That's fine. Good for you.
We cannot possibly understand timelessness because we have not
experienced it. (that's a rather bold statement on my part and I'm not entirely sure I agree with myself). That does not mean timelessness does not exist.
QUOTE SoLoved states:
The laws of probability demonstrate that chance does not allow for evolution to take place. Probability is inexplicable and this is why evolutionists refuse to backtrack to an intelligent designer.
QUOTE You state:
That has been discussed and I've made reference to it, even if many mistakes happen, it just takes one right to move on to another level of complexity (which can be seen as evolution).
I can't see jow anyone can say that evolution is inexplicable. You see it everyday.
I didn't say evolution is inexplicable. I said probability is inexplicable. It is the laws of probability that do not allow for major evolution to take place.
Final note: The ID'ers are not all scientists. We depend on good scientists to do a good job of researching all probabilities. The scientist who will not
research a probability has limited his results and does a disservice to his fellow humanoid . ID is probable. Probability is inexplicable. However, it may not necessarily be our job or even necessary to explain probability. Probability is what probability is. There's a 50/50 chance a flipped coin will turn up heads or tails. ( I do not want to hear from those who have conducted a scientific experiment proving that heads will come up 52% of the time - I'm just trying to make a point!) Now you can try to explain this probability, but this probability is still a fact.
Much can be learned from researching a probable theory. This must be evident even to an evolutionist.
Good Day,
SoLoved
I posted how they proved the age of the Earth several posts ago via radioactive dating of isotopes with very long half lives.
You did not comment or show how that post was in error, yet you persist in saying "You cannot prove it".
This and your comment that not all IDers are scientists leads me to the conclusion that you are simply regurgitating arguments against E and for IE without the requisite scientific background to actually understand what you are arguing about.
Your statement that "ID is probable", has no basis in fact and your statement that "Probability is inexplicable" indicates you have no understanding of probability either.
But I will tell you what IS PROBABLE. The "scientists" that twist the facts enough to convince the gullible (particularly the ones who WANT to believe) that there is "scientific proof" for ID are most assuredly making good money by doing so and what's more are laughing all the way to the bank depositing the money they make from the books, lectures and web sites they generate to promote this psuedo science.
Arthur
Although the creationism isn't even plausible to me, I understand that others accept it and assume it as being the truth. What I don't like is when things like this are said (SoLoved):
Part of the reason for the seemingly one-sided quotes is to demonstrate the attitude of some of the
E's on this board. They treat ID as a myth and they do so proudly - just see some of the previous
posts blasting ID, and I'm sure there will be more to come.
Please see my in-depth reply on the E theory of 'very extensive fossil records' - just a few posts back.
QUOTE
QUOTE You State: Several people here have given proof (using radioactive decay of isotopes with long half-times) that planet Earth is older than 2.4 thousand million years (I'm european).
You state the age of the earth has been proven using radioactive decay.......You believe this, but cannot prove it.
For an example of how quickly things can happen on this earth, I suggest you pay attention to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE You State: Several people here have given proof (using radioactive decay of isotopes with long half-times) that planet Earth is older than 2.4 thousand million years (I'm european). |
You state the age of the earth has been proven using radioactive decay.......You believe this, but cannot prove it.
For an example of how quickly things can happen on this earth, I suggest you pay attention to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
You state: It has been said before, but I think it must be said again. The evolution theory is independent of God, so this can't be seen as a hole in the theory.
Question: Under what circumstances could an E scientist ever find a creator/designer?
QUOTE
You state: We are travelling to the destruction of our own planet due to.....
and then you proceed to answer your own question. Free will, YOU can and do choose whatever YOU want. YOU and the rest of US
are responsible for OUR own destruction. But it is just like US to not want to be accountable or accept responsibility for our actions. WE are nothing but a bunch spoiled rotten kids!
You state that evolution fills the hole in you. That's fine. Good for you.
We cannot possibly understand timelessness because we have not
experienced it. (that's a rather bold statement on my part and I'm not entirely sure I agree with myself). That does not mean timelessness does not exist.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You state: We are travelling to the destruction of our own planet due to..... |
and then you proceed to answer your own question. Free will, YOU can and do choose whatever YOU want. YOU and the rest of US
are responsible for OUR own destruction. But it is just like US to not want to be accountable or accept responsibility for our actions. WE are nothing but a bunch spoiled rotten kids!
You state that evolution fills the hole in you. That's fine. Good for you.
We cannot possibly understand timelessness because we have not
experienced it. (that's a rather bold statement on my part and I'm not entirely sure I agree with myself). That does not mean timelessness does not exist.
QUOTE SoLoved states:
The laws of probability demonstrate that chance does not allow for evolution to take place. Probability is inexplicable and this is why evolutionists refuse to backtrack to an intelligent designer.
QUOTE You state:
That has been discussed and I've made reference to it, even if many mistakes happen, it just takes one right to move on to another level of complexity (which can be seen as evolution).
I can't see jow anyone can say that evolution is inexplicable. You see it everyday.
I didn't say evolution is inexplicable. I said probability is inexplicable. It is the laws of probability that do not allow for major evolution to take place.
Final note: The ID'ers are not all scientists. We depend on good scientists to do a good job of researching all probabilities. The scientist who will not
research a probability has limited his results and does a disservice to his fellow humanoid . ID is probable. Probability is inexplicable. However, it may not necessarily be our job or even necessary to explain probability. Probability is what probability is. There's a 50/50 chance a flipped coin will turn up heads or tails. ( I do not want to hear from those who have conducted a scientific experiment proving that heads will come up 52% of the time - I'm just trying to make a point!) Now you can try to explain this probability, but this probability is still a fact.
Much can be learned from researching a probable theory. This must be evident even to an evolutionist.
Good Day,
SoLoved
so loved -
Carbon14 dating or potassum40 dating IS proving it!!!! How can you actually be that dumb? Here's a basic physics lesson. Elements are elements because of the number of protons inside the nucleus. the number of neutrons can vary, as can the number of electrons. When the electrons vary, you have an anion - salts, soaps, surfactants inside a foetus' lungs, etc.
When the number of neutrons varies (is increased) the nucleus (element) is called an isotopes. There are 2 classes of isotopes: stable and unstable. Stable isotopes occur in what's called natural abundance - SPECIFIC percentages in the universe, w/ VERY specific half-lives, which I can prove to you to the picofemtosecond! Unstable isotopes are sometimes naturally occurring, but are more often made by humans.
We make thallium-201, oxygen-18, iodine-131, technicium-99 and many others to help us out.
BUT...
If you doubt radioactive decay, then you are hereby NOT ALLOWED to go to a cardiologist or a radiologist ever! Cardiologists use thallium-201 to detect failures in cardiac perfusion. they also use technicium-99 and a compound called sestamibi, which is an organometallic radio-isotope. You can't go to a neurologist either, since Oxygen18 PET scans are done w/ a neutron-doped form of oxygen which is then exchanged w/ regular oxygens on glucose molecules.
Oh, and throw out ALL of your smoke alarms in your house, since they detect smoke by changing the ionization current of Americium-241 - another radioactive decay process and one you're so ignorant of, you don't even realize you benefit from it.
Just because you can't see something doesn't mean you "just have to believe". very real experiments prove that stuff we can't see really is there.
Come over to the synchrotron and stand in the electron beam - you will VERY definitely get all sorts of cancers and suffer radiation damage, etc. Don't you see how dangerous your arrogant line of thinking is? That's what excommunicated Galileo - and set 1600 years of geocentric hypotheses in motion in the times just after Ptolemy.
- angrily spinning solids
Carbon14 dating or potassum40 dating IS proving it!!!! How can you actually be that dumb? Here's a basic physics lesson. Elements are elements because of the number of protons inside the nucleus. the number of neutrons can vary, as can the number of electrons. When the electrons vary, you have an anion - salts, soaps, surfactants inside a foetus' lungs, etc.
When the number of neutrons varies (is increased) the nucleus (element) is called an isotopes. There are 2 classes of isotopes: stable and unstable. Stable isotopes occur in what's called natural abundance - SPECIFIC percentages in the universe, w/ VERY specific half-lives, which I can prove to you to the picofemtosecond! Unstable isotopes are sometimes naturally occurring, but are more often made by humans.
We make thallium-201, oxygen-18, iodine-131, technicium-99 and many others to help us out.
BUT...
If you doubt radioactive decay, then you are hereby NOT ALLOWED to go to a cardiologist or a radiologist ever! Cardiologists use thallium-201 to detect failures in cardiac perfusion. they also use technicium-99 and a compound called sestamibi, which is an organometallic radio-isotope. You can't go to a neurologist either, since Oxygen18 PET scans are done w/ a neutron-doped form of oxygen which is then exchanged w/ regular oxygens on glucose molecules.
Oh, and throw out ALL of your smoke alarms in your house, since they detect smoke by changing the ionization current of Americium-241 - another radioactive decay process and one you're so ignorant of, you don't even realize you benefit from it.
Just because you can't see something doesn't mean you "just have to believe". very real experiments prove that stuff we can't see really is there.
Come over to the synchrotron and stand in the electron beam - you will VERY definitely get all sorts of cancers and suffer radiation damage, etc. Don't you see how dangerous your arrogant line of thinking is? That's what excommunicated Galileo - and set 1600 years of geocentric hypotheses in motion in the times just after Ptolemy.
- angrily spinning solids
soloved states
Don't go there. I have seen several pseudo-scientific posts trying to prove that the writer knows the probability of this or the likelyhood of that and can therefore prove it to be statisticly immposible that the other occured. IT IS ALL CRAP!!!
Citing
Ridiculous
Arithmatic
Pointlessness
(Appropriate and cogent. if I do say so myself.)
What is the probability that life began on Earth and through gradual change over great lenths of time resulted in humans having this discussion on our computers?
1 to 1. Absolute certainty. Unity. Beyond all possible doubt. It happened.
The fact that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old is well established. No lack of faith on your part will change that.
The fact that life began on Earth is unquestionable. Even by you.
The fact that lifeforms change over time is supported by HUGE amounts of evidence from the fossil record. Live with it.
That different species of lifeforms have common ancesters has been shown to be true over and over and over... Velociraptors were appropriatly named.
That man decended from other more ape-like forms is easily traced back through history for more tha 4.5 million years through the fossil record. Australiopithicus, Robustus
That modern man has progressed from the discovery of fire, through the use of stone tools, the use of metals,the wheel, electomagnetism, transistor, printed circuit, calculators and, finally the computer I am speaking to from right now is not a figment of my imagination. It is reality and any theory you or I come up with has to fit into that framework. No hocus pocus is allowed in that explanation.
READY SET GO
I accept the evolutionary explanation. It fits the facts. And no alchemy, magic nor supreme being is required so, using Occam's Razor there is none involved.
Your application to teach ID as a science to my children is denied. Come back when your hypothsis has enough evidentiary support to qualify as a scientific theory. Be prepared to be tested and to face a review by your peers. And "GOD did it" will not be an acceptable answer to any of the questions on the test. Pointing your finger at other applicants and yelling" they're not perfect" is rude and does not help you be any more qualified than you are now. Only positive evidence supporting your position will be accepted, people hearing voices from God is hearsay and grounds for an increase in thier medication level. Please insure you meet the qualifications before you apply again so as not to waste my time or yours.
By the way, you could apply over at the Humanities Department. I hear thier evidentiary standads are much kower than ours.
Good day.
QUOTE
ID is probable. Probability is inexplicable
Don't go there. I have seen several pseudo-scientific posts trying to prove that the writer knows the probability of this or the likelyhood of that and can therefore prove it to be statisticly immposible that the other occured. IT IS ALL CRAP!!!
Citing
Ridiculous
Arithmatic
Pointlessness
(Appropriate and cogent. if I do say so myself.)
What is the probability that life began on Earth and through gradual change over great lenths of time resulted in humans having this discussion on our computers?
1 to 1. Absolute certainty. Unity. Beyond all possible doubt. It happened.
The fact that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old is well established. No lack of faith on your part will change that.
The fact that life began on Earth is unquestionable. Even by you.
The fact that lifeforms change over time is supported by HUGE amounts of evidence from the fossil record. Live with it.
That different species of lifeforms have common ancesters has been shown to be true over and over and over... Velociraptors were appropriatly named.
That man decended from other more ape-like forms is easily traced back through history for more tha 4.5 million years through the fossil record. Australiopithicus, Robustus
That modern man has progressed from the discovery of fire, through the use of stone tools, the use of metals,the wheel, electomagnetism, transistor, printed circuit, calculators and, finally the computer I am speaking to from right now is not a figment of my imagination. It is reality and any theory you or I come up with has to fit into that framework. No hocus pocus is allowed in that explanation.
READY SET GO
I accept the evolutionary explanation. It fits the facts. And no alchemy, magic nor supreme being is required so, using Occam's Razor there is none involved.
Your application to teach ID as a science to my children is denied. Come back when your hypothsis has enough evidentiary support to qualify as a scientific theory. Be prepared to be tested and to face a review by your peers. And "GOD did it" will not be an acceptable answer to any of the questions on the test. Pointing your finger at other applicants and yelling" they're not perfect" is rude and does not help you be any more qualified than you are now. Only positive evidence supporting your position will be accepted, people hearing voices from God is hearsay and grounds for an increase in thier medication level. Please insure you meet the qualifications before you apply again so as not to waste my time or yours.
By the way, you could apply over at the Humanities Department. I hear thier evidentiary standads are much kower than ours.
Good day.
QUOTE
You state the age of the earth has been proven using radioactive decay.......You believe this, but cannot prove it.
I posted how they proved the age of the Earth several posts ago via radioactive dating of isotopes with very long half lives.
You did not comment or show how that post was in error, yet you persist in saying "You cannot prove it".
This and your comment that not all IDers are scientists leads me to the conclusion that you are simply regurgitating arguments against E and for IE without the requisite scientific background to actually understand what you are arguing about.
Your statement that "ID is probable", has no basis in fact and your statement that "Probability is inexplicable" indicates you have no understanding of probability either.
But I will tell you what IS PROBABLE. The "scientists" that twist the facts enough to convince the gullible (particularly the ones who WANT to believe) that there is "scientific proof" for ID are most assuredly making good money by doing so and what's more are laughing all the way to the bank depositing the money they make from the books, lectures and web sites they generate to promote this psuedo science.
Arthur
QUOTE (SoLoved+Sep 1 2005, 06:26 PM)
You are describing what happened on Day 1-Day 7. I was describing what was created.
SoLoved
No, what you described is your interpretation or spin of what is stated in the xian bible. The xian creation myth states no such detail as you reported it. And after all, the xian bible we are told is the infallible word of the xian god. By altering it to fit modern knowledge is equivocation and a sign of how supporters of ID and CS will do whatever is takes in an attempt to provide validity to ID and CS.
SoLoved
No, what you described is your interpretation or spin of what is stated in the xian bible. The xian creation myth states no such detail as you reported it. And after all, the xian bible we are told is the infallible word of the xian god. By altering it to fit modern knowledge is equivocation and a sign of how supporters of ID and CS will do whatever is takes in an attempt to provide validity to ID and CS.
Grumpy,
I love your writing style. Very entertaining. You remind me of one of those individuals who are natural storytellers.
One last comment for the day. If anyone wants to get the first-hand ramblings or arguments used by SoLoved and similar ID and CS supporters, search for a “Dr.” Hovind or go to drdino.com.
From this you get the “you cannot prove it” mindset, no matter what facts are presented. On his site, there are some MP3s of Hovind’s speeches. It may be painful, but at least you can get firsthand the source of the illogic and apologetics these people use.
Here’s hoping all have a good weekend. Be seeing you…
I love your writing style. Very entertaining. You remind me of one of those individuals who are natural storytellers.
One last comment for the day. If anyone wants to get the first-hand ramblings or arguments used by SoLoved and similar ID and CS supporters, search for a “Dr.” Hovind or go to drdino.com.
From this you get the “you cannot prove it” mindset, no matter what facts are presented. On his site, there are some MP3s of Hovind’s speeches. It may be painful, but at least you can get firsthand the source of the illogic and apologetics these people use.
Here’s hoping all have a good weekend. Be seeing you…
QUOTE (SoLoved+Sep 1 2005, 07:06 PM)
Part of the reason for the seemingly one-sided quotes is to demonstrate the attitude of some of the
E's on this board. They treat ID as a myth and they do so proudly - just see some of the previous
posts blasting ID, and I'm sure there will be more to come.
I treat ID as a myth but you said E shouldn't even be taught in schools because it isn't the truth.
Yet, can you prove the truth of ID?
I've read your statement saying that fossils deposition can occur very fast. However, you didn't answer my question. Did humans and dinossaurs coexist?
Dinossaurs did exist right? At least at some point... Yet, if your IDer did them why kill them even before we appeared. After all you assume that the world has been made in order for us to appreciate it. If so, why animals that just appeared as fossils?
I've read your statement saying that fossils deposition can occur very fast. However, you didn't answer my question. Did humans and dinossaurs coexist?
Dinossaurs did exist right? At least at some point... Yet, if your IDer did them why kill them even before we appeared. After all you assume that the world has been made in order for us to appreciate it. If so, why animals that just appeared as fossils?
You state the age of the earth has been proven using radioactive decay.......You believe this, but cannot prove it.
Can you prove that what adoucette said is wrong? Science establishes, with radioactive decay calculations, the age of our planet. Yet, you say it doesn't. How come? I can't see how you can argue about a exponential decrease in the number (hence fallout) of a radioactive isotope.
I cannot imagine how the Hurricane Katrina can manage to bury people at the level at which a dinossaur would be found...
I cannot imagine how the Hurricane Katrina can manage to bury people at the level at which a dinossaur would be found...
Question: Under what circumstances could an E scientist ever find a creator/designer?
What proof have anyone given that there is a creator/designer? One can only be found if there is one. Yet, I haven't seen a 'hole' in the Evolution theory that couldn't be debated and disregarded in a scientific approach to the issue.
If you could at least assume the planet has existed for 4.6 thousand million years (as scientists agree and has been presented here) I could try to debate that with you. Yet, you suppose the planet has only less than ten thousand years. That trully doesn't give time for evolution to occur from scratch to everything we see.
But consider for a moment that long time that the planet is supposed to have. Lets suppose that there was nothing in the planet alive for the first half. Then, lets suppose that at 2 thousand million years ago life was created. It would come from a small cell that would divide. There would be mutations on that cell, some of them very bad. But lets suppose that some of them were good. If for every million of years the complexity of the life form doubled. That it would be 2^2000 which is 1.1481E602 (a number like 11481 followed by 598 zeros). That's a very big number!! In human genome there are only three thousand million base pairs (3E9 in the numbering system I present above). That's a very big difference. Even if you consider the complexity to increase in much larger amounts of time you still have time for a lot of mistakes to happen.
If you could at least assume the planet has existed for 4.6 thousand million years (as scientists agree and has been presented here) I could try to debate that with you. Yet, you suppose the planet has only less than ten thousand years. That trully doesn't give time for evolution to occur from scratch to everything we see.
But consider for a moment that long time that the planet is supposed to have. Lets suppose that there was nothing in the planet alive for the first half. Then, lets suppose that at 2 thousand million years ago life was created. It would come from a small cell that would divide. There would be mutations on that cell, some of them very bad. But lets suppose that some of them were good. If for every million of years the complexity of the life form doubled. That it would be 2^2000 which is 1.1481E602 (a number like 11481 followed by 598 zeros). That's a very big number!! In human genome there are only three thousand million base pairs (3E9 in the numbering system I present above). That's a very big difference. Even if you consider the complexity to increase in much larger amounts of time you still have time for a lot of mistakes to happen.
ID is probable.
I find amazing how you didn't even talk about what I said about bacterias that are resistent to medicines... If once they weren't and now they are, isn't it a proof of evolution?
Also, I don't see you presenting proof against radioactive decay calculations.
You say we can't prove anything yet you don't present proof against what we say. Something's wrong here...
Daniel
Regardless of how many 'e's you use, the bulk of scientific evidence agrees with me (see other posters)
Regardless of how many 'e's you use, the bulk of scientific evidence agrees with me (see other posters)
If we assume that the creation story is correct... If man were created about 6,000 years ago
I'm not assuming that.
Yes, I believe that all people groups come from the same population... but that group was the result of evolution.
Yes, I believe that all people groups come from the same population... but that group was the result of evolution.
Your statement: 'Traits that promote survival (and more importantly, reproductive success)....' ....now how does that fit in with homosexuality?
Homosexuality is most likely not related to genetics, although possibly there is some inclination that is genetic (which some people don't act on, thus passing on the genes). In any case, homosexuality is very rare in the animal kingdom (I personally don't know of any examples beyond a small minority of humans) and isn't really related to the main ideas of evolution.
100,000 years is, relatively, a rather short time. But there has actually been some microevolution:
100,000 years is, relatively, a rather short time. But there has actually been some microevolution:
From http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/HumanEvolution.shtml:
A recent study (Ruiz-Pesini et al. 2004) of mtDNA has demonstrated that gene frequencies have changed over the last 50,000 years i.e. human populations have still been subject to evolution.
Some mutations in mtDNA may make aerobic respiration less efficient, so that the mitochondria generate more heat and less ATP. These mutations will be selected for if they are beneficial to the person carrying them - and they would certainly be advantageous for humans living in the cold climates that prevailed during the Ice Age.
Examination of the mtDNA from over 1,000 people has found that such a mutation is present in populations of Northern Europeans, East Asians, and Amerindians. Of those in the sample that live in Arctic regions, 75% had the mutation, which was also found in the 14% of the sample living in temperate zones. Some of the ancestors of these groups would have lived in Siberia, and all would have experienced the Ice Age's glacial conditions. However, the mutation is not found at all in people of African ancestry.
The study concludes that the correlation between habitat and presence of the beneficial mutation is evidence of positive selection for the changed gene sequence. That is, the mutation was selected for because those people who had them were able to generate more body heat in an extremely cold climate.
Where is this hole at? Then why fill it with religion, why not something that acually find fun (as opposed to boring).
Where is this hole at? Then why fill it with religion, why not something that acually find fun (as opposed to boring).
If humans evolved 100,000 years ago (I'm trying to find out how old evolutionists say that man in today's form is - is this right?) -then there could be considerably more microevolution taking place. But generally speaking the only real differences that have been found are size, which again, is realted to diet and nutritional factors.
I beleive that modern humans are thougt to have evolved 200-100,000 years ago. Besides a height diff, there also have been diff. in skin color, hair color, types of nails (flat or curve faced), large intestine bacteria makeup, types of hair, ect... and these are related to genetic factors. even the bacteria living in you gut is influenced by genetics (cause they don't get killed by your imune system) and yes, the amount and type of bacteria living in your gut is diff for people living around the world. sometimes it is affected by diet and sometime by enviroment but forensic scientist can tell you what race, what you ate(duh) and where you live in the world by your poo.
It's interesting that you make this claim but find criticism of evolution tiresome.
First off, all current whale families have an abundance of fossils. I am not sure if every single whale species we see has fossils or not, but it seems likely that is the case.
Secondly, Baisoloraurus, the so-called transitional species that I mentioned is an aquatic whale-like creature, and it's fossils are so common that people in Mississippe and Lousiana often used fossilized bones in various ways around the house and farm.
The truth is whale fossils are quite common, and not all that rare. I am not sure where your ideas stem from, but you can spend a little time googling and verify these claims quite easily.
It's interesting that you make this claim but find criticism of evolution tiresome.
First off, all current whale families have an abundance of fossils. I am not sure if every single whale species we see has fossils or not, but it seems likely that is the case.
Secondly, Baisoloraurus, the so-called transitional species that I mentioned is an aquatic whale-like creature, and it's fossils are so common that people in Mississippe and Lousiana often used fossilized bones in various ways around the house and farm.
The truth is whale fossils are quite common, and not all that rare. I am not sure where your ideas stem from, but you can spend a little time googling and verify these claims quite easily.
You might also explain why you think that there would be several thousand transitional forms of whales.
I already explained it. Look at the horse evolution, which consists of horse species evolving into the modern horse species, according to evo claims. We see at least 28 species or transitional forms to produce modern horses. The level of change and evolution is quite small and slight when compared to the level of changes needed to evolve a land mammal to a whale.
Each adaptive trait would have to gradually evolve, and be exhibited over a range within a new species. Maybe sometimes more than one adaptive trait could emerge with a new species, but as we know, evolution would not take a strictly linear path, but would create more of a bush-like effect where there would be far more transitionals per final product so to speak.
In fact, it is not unreasonable to expect there to have been several orders, complete with families, maybe suborders, genera and species in between the most recent land mammals and whales. Among modern whales, we see 2 suborders and about 80 species or something like that. There is not a huge range of differences in the 2 suborders and species, and some species have been shown to be able to interbreed successfully and produce fertile offspring, which to me suggests they should be considered a single polytypic species.
But the point is that the range of differences between the nearest land mammals and whales are fairly massive, and such ranges of differences should be well-represented in the fossil record, but are not.
Hole #Two Beelion: Evolutionists like to scoff at the Greeks earlier interpretation on the earth being the center of the
universe.
The Western world used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was an idea that the
ancient Greeks first proposed - that the other planets, the Sun and the Moon all circle the Earth, while
the distant fixed stars all look on inwards to us as the center of creation. This idea suited the
Christian outlook of the times, for it physically placed the human race where God had placed them
psychologically - as the crowning glory of His creation.
Copernicus was one of the first scientists to challenge this idea. It is now accepted that all experimental
evidence and all our best theories point to the fact that the Earth is, astronomically speaking, an
ordinary member of a solar system. The Sun is actually what sits at the center of this system and is the
binding force that keeps it together.
Well, er, now they're saying....
Experimental evidence also points to the fact that this solar system is not the center of our galaxy.
In fact, we can see the rest of our galaxy in the sky - the Milky Way - and even with the naked eye it
is possible to realize that we are not at its center.
Copernicus' theory didn't address our solar system's relationship to our galaxy.
Copernicus was correct.
As far as I know there was never a serious scientific view that our solar system was the center of our galaxy, though it took until modern time to gather enough information so as to figure out where in our galaxy our solar system is. ("a backwater arm in an unfashionable section" (Douglas Adams)). Life would not be possible anywhere near the center of the galaxy.
Which brings us to:
Hole #One Beelion: Evolution cannot explain why the skies and the stars mark the seasons, days, and years.
This has NOTHING to do with Evolution, but more importantly, the basic structure of our solar system and its behavior WAS explained by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler (laws of planetary motion) and Newton, with the reason for the seasons being the last to be understood. The Moon, which makes life on earth possible, controls our day length, and seasons. The moon keeps our degree of tilt within seasonal limits and without it the earth would go through 90+ degrees of tilt on its axis. The moon also slowed down the rotational speed of the earth. The length of an earth day has about doubled since the moon's violent formation and its tidal forces continue to slow our rotational velocity. As the moon continues to recede from the earth our stability will continue to decrease to a point that life on earth will become somewhat problematic.
This has NOTHING to do with Evolution, but more importantly, the basic structure of our solar system and its behavior WAS explained by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler (laws of planetary motion) and Newton, with the reason for the seasons being the last to be understood. The Moon, which makes life on earth possible, controls our day length, and seasons. The moon keeps our degree of tilt within seasonal limits and without it the earth would go through 90+ degrees of tilt on its axis. The moon also slowed down the rotational speed of the earth. The length of an earth day has about doubled since the moon's violent formation and its tidal forces continue to slow our rotational velocity. As the moon continues to recede from the earth our stability will continue to decrease to a point that life on earth will become somewhat problematic.
Hole #Three Beelion: Natural Selection. Darwin believed that if new varieties could arise in a short time to suit their environment, then given enough time, any number of new characteristics, to the extent of totally new creatures, could appear. This was how, he believed, lungs originally arose in a lungless world, and feathers in a featherless one. Darwin did not know how heredity really works, but people today should know better.
He did not know, for instance, that what is passed on in reproduction is essentially a whole lot of parcels of information (genes), or coded instructions.
What natural selection actually does is get rid of information. It is not capable of creating anything new, by definition. In the above example, the plants became better able to survive dry weather because of the elimination of certain genes; i.e. they lost a portion of the information which their ancestors had. The information for the longer roots was already in the parent population; natural selection
caused nothing new to arise in, or be added to, the population.
The price paid for adaptation, or specialization, is always the permanent loss of some of the information in that group of organisms. If the environment were changed back so that shorter roots were the only way for plants to survive, the information for these would not magically ‘reappear’; the population would no longer be able to adapt in this direction. The only way for a short-rooted variety to arise as an adaptation to the environment would be if things began once more with the ‘mixed’ or ‘mongrel’ parent population, in which both types of genes
were present.
Natural selection does not necessarily get rid of information. In fact, the increasing number of genes as you go up the tree of life argues for just the opposite.
While natural selection is incapable of creating anything new, reproduction certainly is, and it is natural selection which can then "determine" that this is "better". (note "better" might just be better adapted to a food source that is otherwise untapped, creating a new niche for life to fill)
Your other examples, lungs and feathers are likewise uninformed. The long slow development of lungs can be traced through slow gradual changes. The primitive vertebrate heart was devoid of coronary support and obtained oxygen only from luminal blood. By supplying more oxygen to the heart the primitive lungs, a mere collection of capillary rich tissue, were important in ancient animals for sustained activity. This grew in size but were external. Then came structural changes that maximized surface area followed by the addition of protective tissue (gills), followed by musculature that could drive water through the gills even if the fish wasn't moving (as in many sharks). The movement towards "air breathing" was driven by the fact that warm water contains little O2 and fish will instinctively gulp air at the surface when O2 levels drop. A whole line of fish developed that relied on this ability, eventually forming a "labryinth" where air was retained. This lung function then influenced cardiovascular adaptations of tetrapods because their divided cardiovascular system isolates the right side of the heart from pulmonary oxygen. Three innovations allowed for this isolation. In amphibians oxygen-rich blood from cutaneous and buccal respiration enters the right side of the heart. In chelonians and lepidosaurs the intracardiac shunt provides oxygen-rich blood to the right side of the heart. In mammals, birds and crocodilians, support of the heart by coronary vasculature replaces the shunt.
Birds probably have the most advanced lung system which they inherited from their dinosaur predecessors and then improved on. Many of their bones are perforated and hollow, and contain air-filled sacs connected to the lungs and trachea. There is a set of anterior air sacs and a set of posterior sacs with the lungs located in between. The primitive function of these sacs was to lighten the structure, important in birds, but useful in large animals to reduce the otherwise enormous weight of the bones.
Instead of inflating their lungs directly, birds inflate the anterior air sacs first and then the sacs are compressed pushing air through the lungs. At the same time the posterior sacs compress and expel air to the trachea. The posterior set then expands and draws air from the lungs. It takes two "breaths" to move one intake of air through the sacs and lungs.
The advantage though is there isn't any dead air. The lungs are never filled with CO2 rich air that needs to be expelled. Fresh air flows continuously through the A sacs to the lungs to the P sacs and then out. Air always moves in the same direction. A bird's lungs do not contain the collection of tiny sacs that mamallian lungs do but instead contains slim tubes that are covered with capillaries to extract oxygen.
A similar path of increased complexity surrounds the evolution of scales into feathers, because though feathers are essentially scales, they are a much more complex structure.
Both of these destroy the argument that traits are "lost" via evolution. Just the opposite, elegant complexity derives from eons of small steps with natural selection being the arbiter of what works and what doesn't.
Arthur
E's on this board. They treat ID as a myth and they do so proudly - just see some of the previous
posts blasting ID, and I'm sure there will be more to come.
I treat ID as a myth but you said E shouldn't even be taught in schools because it isn't the truth.
Yet, can you prove the truth of ID?
QUOTE
Please see my in-depth reply on the E theory of 'very extensive fossil records' - just a few posts back.
I've read your statement saying that fossils deposition can occur very fast. However, you didn't answer my question. Did humans and dinossaurs coexist?
Dinossaurs did exist right? At least at some point... Yet, if your IDer did them why kill them even before we appeared. After all you assume that the world has been made in order for us to appreciate it. If so, why animals that just appeared as fossils?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Please see my in-depth reply on the E theory of 'very extensive fossil records' - just a few posts back. |
I've read your statement saying that fossils deposition can occur very fast. However, you didn't answer my question. Did humans and dinossaurs coexist?
Dinossaurs did exist right? At least at some point... Yet, if your IDer did them why kill them even before we appeared. After all you assume that the world has been made in order for us to appreciate it. If so, why animals that just appeared as fossils?
You state the age of the earth has been proven using radioactive decay.......You believe this, but cannot prove it.
Can you prove that what adoucette said is wrong? Science establishes, with radioactive decay calculations, the age of our planet. Yet, you say it doesn't. How come? I can't see how you can argue about a exponential decrease in the number (hence fallout) of a radioactive isotope.
QUOTE
For an example of how quickly things can happen on this earth, I suggest you pay attention to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
I cannot imagine how the Hurricane Katrina can manage to bury people at the level at which a dinossaur would be found...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For an example of how quickly things can happen on this earth, I suggest you pay attention to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. |
I cannot imagine how the Hurricane Katrina can manage to bury people at the level at which a dinossaur would be found...
Question: Under what circumstances could an E scientist ever find a creator/designer?
What proof have anyone given that there is a creator/designer? One can only be found if there is one. Yet, I haven't seen a 'hole' in the Evolution theory that couldn't be debated and disregarded in a scientific approach to the issue.
QUOTE
I didn't say evolution is inexplicable. I said probability is inexplicable. It is the laws of probability that do not allow for major evolution to take place.
If you could at least assume the planet has existed for 4.6 thousand million years (as scientists agree and has been presented here) I could try to debate that with you. Yet, you suppose the planet has only less than ten thousand years. That trully doesn't give time for evolution to occur from scratch to everything we see.
But consider for a moment that long time that the planet is supposed to have. Lets suppose that there was nothing in the planet alive for the first half. Then, lets suppose that at 2 thousand million years ago life was created. It would come from a small cell that would divide. There would be mutations on that cell, some of them very bad. But lets suppose that some of them were good. If for every million of years the complexity of the life form doubled. That it would be 2^2000 which is 1.1481E602 (a number like 11481 followed by 598 zeros). That's a very big number!! In human genome there are only three thousand million base pairs (3E9 in the numbering system I present above). That's a very big difference. Even if you consider the complexity to increase in much larger amounts of time you still have time for a lot of mistakes to happen.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I didn't say evolution is inexplicable. I said probability is inexplicable. It is the laws of probability that do not allow for major evolution to take place. |
If you could at least assume the planet has existed for 4.6 thousand million years (as scientists agree and has been presented here) I could try to debate that with you. Yet, you suppose the planet has only less than ten thousand years. That trully doesn't give time for evolution to occur from scratch to everything we see.
But consider for a moment that long time that the planet is supposed to have. Lets suppose that there was nothing in the planet alive for the first half. Then, lets suppose that at 2 thousand million years ago life was created. It would come from a small cell that would divide. There would be mutations on that cell, some of them very bad. But lets suppose that some of them were good. If for every million of years the complexity of the life form doubled. That it would be 2^2000 which is 1.1481E602 (a number like 11481 followed by 598 zeros). That's a very big number!! In human genome there are only three thousand million base pairs (3E9 in the numbering system I present above). That's a very big difference. Even if you consider the complexity to increase in much larger amounts of time you still have time for a lot of mistakes to happen.
ID is probable.
I find amazing how you didn't even talk about what I said about bacterias that are resistent to medicines... If once they weren't and now they are, isn't it a proof of evolution?
Also, I don't see you presenting proof against radioactive decay calculations.
You say we can't prove anything yet you don't present proof against what we say. Something's wrong here...
Daniel
To genesplicer
Aw shucks... I must give the credit to my typists, Hunt and Peck, for they type so slowly I have ample time to craft my sentences.
To all
Have a good weekend, I'm stuck in Cary(Consentration Area for Relocated Yankees) NC, have no gas and none is available(I actually witnessed a fist fight about who's turn it was at a pump yesterday. When the Gendarmes were summoned I left without fuel going straight home and here I will stay until that cute young thing on the local news program tells me it's safe to come out.
To those in simular circumstances
Keep posting, I like nothing better than verbal fencing, especially when I have a sabre and they have a butter knife.(I'm sorta, kinda, almost kidding)(no i'm not). Seriously, the kind of discussion we are having here is part of how good science is done. Putting up sand castles of logic to have your opponent knock them down teaches you how to build them better next time, thus sharpenning your wit. (now where did I put those bricks)
To those around New Orleans
You are in our thoughts and our hearts are broken over your distress. Keep proding George the appointed in the nether regions until he gets up off of them and gets you the assistance you need. You helped us in our need, and we're coming, just hold on.
Aw shucks... I must give the credit to my typists, Hunt and Peck, for they type so slowly I have ample time to craft my sentences.
To all
Have a good weekend, I'm stuck in Cary(Consentration Area for Relocated Yankees) NC, have no gas and none is available(I actually witnessed a fist fight about who's turn it was at a pump yesterday. When the Gendarmes were summoned I left without fuel going straight home and here I will stay until that cute young thing on the local news program tells me it's safe to come out.
To those in simular circumstances
Keep posting, I like nothing better than verbal fencing,
especially when I have a sabre and they have a butter knife.(I'm sorta, kinda, almost kidding)(no i'm not). Seriously, the kind of discussion we are having here is part of how good science is done. Putting up sand castles of logic to have your opponent knock them down teaches you how to build them better next time, thus sharpenning your wit. (now where did I put those bricks)To those around New Orleans
You are in our thoughts and our hearts are broken over your distress. Keep proding George the appointed in the nether regions until he gets up off of them and gets you the assistance you need. You helped us in our need, and we're coming, just hold on.
QUOTE
The only way that your theory holds water is if you continue to insist that the earth is beelions and beelions of years old
Regardless of how many 'e's you use, the bulk of scientific evidence agrees with me (see other posters)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The only way that your theory holds water is if you continue to insist that the earth is beelions and beelions of years old |
Regardless of how many 'e's you use, the bulk of scientific evidence agrees with me (see other posters)
If we assume that the creation story is correct... If man were created about 6,000 years ago
I'm not assuming that.
QUOTE
Virtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people groups did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from the same original population.
Yes, I believe that all people groups come from the same population... but that group was the result of evolution.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Virtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people groups did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from the same original population. |
Yes, I believe that all people groups come from the same population... but that group was the result of evolution.
Your statement: 'Traits that promote survival (and more importantly, reproductive success)....' ....now how does that fit in with homosexuality?
Homosexuality is most likely not related to genetics, although possibly there is some inclination that is genetic (which some people don't act on, thus passing on the genes). In any case, homosexuality is very rare in the animal kingdom (I personally don't know of any examples beyond a small minority of humans) and isn't really related to the main ideas of evolution.
QUOTE
If humans evolved 100,000 years ago (I'm trying to find out how old evolutionists say that man in today's form is - is this right?) -then there could be considerably more microevolution taking place. But generally speaking the only real differences that have been found are size, which again, is realted to diet and nutritional factors.
100,000 years is, relatively, a rather short time. But there has actually been some microevolution:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If humans evolved 100,000 years ago (I'm trying to find out how old evolutionists say that man in today's form is - is this right?) -then there could be considerably more microevolution taking place. But generally speaking the only real differences that have been found are size, which again, is realted to diet and nutritional factors. |
100,000 years is, relatively, a rather short time. But there has actually been some microevolution:
From http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/HumanEvolution.shtml:
A recent study (Ruiz-Pesini et al. 2004) of mtDNA has demonstrated that gene frequencies have changed over the last 50,000 years i.e. human populations have still been subject to evolution.
Some mutations in mtDNA may make aerobic respiration less efficient, so that the mitochondria generate more heat and less ATP. These mutations will be selected for if they are beneficial to the person carrying them - and they would certainly be advantageous for humans living in the cold climates that prevailed during the Ice Age.
Examination of the mtDNA from over 1,000 people has found that such a mutation is present in populations of Northern Europeans, East Asians, and Amerindians. Of those in the sample that live in Arctic regions, 75% had the mutation, which was also found in the 14% of the sample living in temperate zones. Some of the ancestors of these groups would have lived in Siberia, and all would have experienced the Ice Age's glacial conditions. However, the mutation is not found at all in people of African ancestry.
The study concludes that the correlation between habitat and presence of the beneficial mutation is evidence of positive selection for the changed gene sequence. That is, the mutation was selected for because those people who had them were able to generate more body heat in an extremely cold climate.
Has anyone thought about that the Earth could have been created so that it merly seems that it is 4.5 billion years old?. Possibly some superhumanly intellegent being/race/god made Earth and all its neat fossils, and relating species in a very short peirod of time?
Hell Earth could have been created an hour ago, and everything before then is a memory that never really happened. Just because you cant think of how its possible to do make Earth doesnt mean there isnt a way, you arnt superhumanly intellegent. Im not even going to try to think of how to do it, what with my mere human level intellegence.
Obviously this is not very provable, but food for thought...
Ps. I think evolution is the best possible answer to life
Hell Earth could have been created an hour ago, and everything before then is a memory that never really happened. Just because you cant think of how its possible to do make Earth doesnt mean there isnt a way, you arnt superhumanly intellegent. Im not even going to try to think of how to do it, what with my mere human level intellegence.
Obviously this is not very provable, but food for thought...
Ps. I think evolution is the best possible answer to life
QUOTE
Evolution does not fill the hole in you.
Where is this hole at? Then why fill it with religion, why not something that acually find fun (as opposed to boring).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Evolution does not fill the hole in you. |
Where is this hole at? Then why fill it with religion, why not something that acually find fun (as opposed to boring).
If humans evolved 100,000 years ago (I'm trying to find out how old evolutionists say that man in today's form is - is this right?) -then there could be considerably more microevolution taking place. But generally speaking the only real differences that have been found are size, which again, is realted to diet and nutritional factors.
I beleive that modern humans are thougt to have evolved 200-100,000 years ago. Besides a height diff, there also have been diff. in skin color, hair color, types of nails (flat or curve faced), large intestine bacteria makeup, types of hair, ect... and these are related to genetic factors. even the bacteria living in you gut is influenced by genetics (cause they don't get killed by your imune system) and yes, the amount and type of bacteria living in your gut is diff for people living around the world. sometimes it is affected by diet and sometime by enviroment but forensic scientist can tell you what race, what you ate(duh) and where you live in the world by your poo.
QUOTE (Asimov+Sep 3 2005, 05:28 PM)
even the bacteria living in you gut is influenced by genetics (cause they don't get killed by your imune system) and yes, the amount and type of bacteria living in your gut is diff for people living around the world.
Being that we are talking about evolution, I should point out that the bacteria aren't killed by your immune system because they are NOT inside you.
We owe this fortunate point to the very old life form, the annelids. Round worms to most of you.
They made one hell of an improvement in the digestive system, TWO openings.
Take the flat worms or the coelenterates (hydra, sponges), they have one opening, food goes in, gets digested, gets expelled (now aren't you REAL glad WE don't do that!)
I call this BATCH feeding.
The round worm, with an opening at both ends could work like a conveyor belt. Much more efficient.
Later animals lengthened the intestine, but coiled it so as not to have a long body plan like the worm. (amphibians, reptiles etc)
Later sections of it became more specialized.
Now, if we put you on a rack and stretched you till you were as long as your digestive tract, once again you would look pretty much like a worm, and if we shined a light in one end it would be visible out the other. What you would see is that the "gut" is OUTSIDE the organism. Essentially a hollow tube that runs through it.
Animals are quite particular about what they let INSIDE and it is the specialized cells lining the intestinal tract that absorb and "eat" for you, they do it much like the very old fashioned amobea. They are just kind enough to pass what they don't need to the rest of you.
Arthur
Being that we are talking about evolution, I should point out that the bacteria aren't killed by your immune system because they are NOT inside you.
We owe this fortunate point to the very old life form, the annelids. Round worms to most of you.
They made one hell of an improvement in the digestive system, TWO openings.
Take the flat worms or the coelenterates (hydra, sponges), they have one opening, food goes in, gets digested, gets expelled (now aren't you REAL glad WE don't do that!)
I call this BATCH feeding.
The round worm, with an opening at both ends could work like a conveyor belt. Much more efficient.
Later animals lengthened the intestine, but coiled it so as not to have a long body plan like the worm. (amphibians, reptiles etc)
Later sections of it became more specialized.
Now, if we put you on a rack and stretched you till you were as long as your digestive tract, once again you would look pretty much like a worm, and if we shined a light in one end it would be visible out the other. What you would see is that the "gut" is OUTSIDE the organism. Essentially a hollow tube that runs through it.
Animals are quite particular about what they let INSIDE and it is the specialized cells lining the intestinal tract that absorb and "eat" for you, they do it much like the very old fashioned amobea. They are just kind enough to pass what they don't need to the rest of you.
Arthur
I am really concerned about what degree of intellect and/or intelligence SoLoved brings to these discussions.
Most of his misstatements have been dealt with in subsequent postings.
No one has yet said anything about his claim that probability is inexplicable. I would claim that this is true only if one has never studied probability.
Some French mathematicians analyzed probability, IIRC, late in the 18th century.
The validity of their work is exemplified by the fact that gambling casinos hardly ever go broke so long as the game players play by the rules and the casino bookkeeping is honest. Commmercial gambling by documented games is probability in action.
I remain disappointed that no one will bother to describe to me what the holes in the theory of evolution actually are. Do such really exist? I don't regard the few things that I've heard of as holes, meaning that I don't really believe that such holes actually exists. SoLoved certainly had nothing to contribute.
I have the same problem with other graduates of the high school from which I graduated some 60 years ago.
Most of his misstatements have been dealt with in subsequent postings.
No one has yet said anything about his claim that probability is inexplicable. I would claim that this is true only if one has never studied probability.
Some French mathematicians analyzed probability, IIRC, late in the 18th century.
The validity of their work is exemplified by the fact that gambling casinos hardly ever go broke so long as the game players play by the rules and the casino bookkeeping is honest. Commmercial gambling by documented games is probability in action.
I remain disappointed that no one will bother to describe to me what the holes in the theory of evolution actually are. Do such really exist? I don't regard the few things that I've heard of as holes, meaning that I don't really believe that such holes actually exists. SoLoved certainly had nothing to contribute.
I have the same problem with other graduates of the high school from which I graduated some 60 years ago.
I concur about the level of creationist resistance offered here by SoLoved - if he wants a theory to "fill his hole", I suggest he wears a hat while he is waiting.
nessus:
"Hell Earth could have been created an hour ago, and everything before then is a memory that never really happened. Just because you cant think of how its possible to do make Earth doesnt mean there isnt a way, you arnt superhumanly intellegent. Im not even going to try to think of how to do it, what with my mere human level intellegence."
I like that theory. But I think a hour is a bit too long. More likely it is all created exactly right now. The only thing left to do is to redraw the astrological charts to show how all the
celestial bodies revolve around the center of it all. ME!!!
Sincerely , a way that a creationist theory could be is that what is is created in reverse .
What could possibly be without consciousness? and since consciousness exists only
in the present moment, then there you have it-- Consciousness, the only game in town.
If you hear a sound, does it mean a tree fell in the forest?
Does God exist because a boy told you?
"Hell Earth could have been created an hour ago, and everything before then is a memory that never really happened. Just because you cant think of how its possible to do make Earth doesnt mean there isnt a way, you arnt superhumanly intellegent. Im not even going to try to think of how to do it, what with my mere human level intellegence."
I like that theory. But I think a hour is a bit too long. More likely it is all created exactly right now. The only thing left to do is to redraw the astrological charts to show how all the
celestial bodies revolve around the center of it all. ME!!!
Sincerely , a way that a creationist theory could be is that what is is created in reverse .
What could possibly be without consciousness? and since consciousness exists only
in the present moment, then there you have it-- Consciousness, the only game in town.
If you hear a sound, does it mean a tree fell in the forest?
Does God exist because a boy told you?
To All
I feel compeled to appologize for the entire caucasion race that we ever produced examples likeass/jillh10.
I feel compeled to appologize for the entire caucasion race that we ever produced examples likeass/jillh10.
"What a classic example of a brainwashed, conditioned, lost, no-hope, stubborn, confused, complicated human brain which has been exposed to every weapon of Satan."
Interesting, thats pretty much what I would say about you, but i would more pity you for your view of the world.
How can I be brainwashed? my parents never forced any view onto me, I decided that what I think is right independently. Not that god is always right as im sure your parents "brainwashed" you into thinking. In the small chance that you arnt religious I apologize, even though u arnt going to read this.
Oh and lastly im certainly not lost, I have bucketfuls of hope for the world, I AM confused at you as you seem to have lost YOUR hope in the world. Im very much so complicated! thank you for that. And Satan is a myth.
I dont see any real holes yet, at least those that have tried to poke them have tried to full them in with religious dogma
Interesting, thats pretty much what I would say about you, but i would more pity you for your view of the world.
How can I be brainwashed? my parents never forced any view onto me, I decided that what I think is right independently. Not that god is always right as im sure your parents "brainwashed" you into thinking. In the small chance that you arnt religious I apologize, even though u arnt going to read this.
Oh and lastly im certainly not lost, I have bucketfuls of hope for the world, I AM confused at you as you seem to have lost YOUR hope in the world. Im very much so complicated! thank you for that. And Satan is a myth.
I dont see any real holes yet, at least those that have tried to poke them have tried to full them in with religious dogma
nessus
I dont know which side of the evolution/Intelligent design debate you are on and when it comes to the type of racist hatred exibited by ***/jillh10 it doesn't matter. Being silent in the face of such reverse bowel movement is what led to the rise of Hitler in the 30's and they need to know up front that if they dare raise their ugly heads within my reach I will have no problem cutting them off. I once wrote Ann Coulter a letter, I told her that her books were the most expensive toilet paper I had ever seen on sale and whats more the paper was defective, every sheet had already been used!!! This country cannot allow such filth to grow in our children and each of us needs to apply a fungicide to the infestation wherever we see it. I've been told I have a sharp tongue and a short fuse but these butt nuggets deserve short and sharp and long and hard and then I will scrape them off the bottom of my boot.
There, i've vented.
The point I'm making is, dont bother answering this dreck, having read the entire post, it's just hateful spew. By answering any point brought up by troglodytes we are giving them respect they have not earned. And I appologize to the troglodytes for the misuse of their name.
I dont know which side of the evolution/Intelligent design debate you are on and when it comes to the type of racist hatred exibited by ***/jillh10 it doesn't matter. Being silent in the face of such reverse bowel movement is what led to the rise of Hitler in the 30's and they need to know up front that if they dare raise their ugly heads within my reach I will have no problem cutting them off. I once wrote Ann Coulter a letter, I told her that her books were the most expensive toilet paper I had ever seen on sale and whats more the paper was defective, every sheet had already been used!!! This country cannot allow such filth to grow in our children and each of us needs to apply a fungicide to the infestation wherever we see it. I've been told I have a sharp tongue and a short fuse but these butt nuggets deserve short and sharp and long and hard and then I will scrape them off the bottom of my boot.
There, i've vented.
The point I'm making is, dont bother answering this dreck, having read the entire post, it's just hateful spew. By answering any point brought up by troglodytes we are giving them respect they have not earned. And I appologize to the troglodytes for the misuse of their name.
Ash?
I must say, It has been a long time ago I read all those Tin foil Hat arguments.
Of course, if I take the time I could produce a valid counter argument or even valid proven points against all of them, but that would not be fun.
The Truth is out there, now you go looking for it, you might learn something if you are capable.
I must say, It has been a long time ago I read all those Tin foil Hat arguments.
Of course, if I take the time I could produce a valid counter argument or even valid proven points against all of them, but that would not be fun.
The Truth is out there, now you go looking for it, you might learn something if you are capable.
In regard to the OP, you need to take a larger look at the fossil record. Take horses since you mentioned them. There were something like at least 28 or more transitional forms of previous horses that went into, according to evo thinking, producing a horse.
This isn't really a problem for creationists and IDers because they are all horse-like creatures.
But it a very big problem for evolutionists. Evos assert fossil rarity to explain the severe shortage of transitional forms. The best evolutionists can do is come up with a handful.
Let's use the popular land mammal to whale evolutionary story. At best, we see 5 potential transitionals, and those are all extremely problematic, but for sake of argument, let's suppose they are valid candidates.
Where are the other several thousand?
You claim fossil rarity, but we see thousands of fossils of Baisoloraurus, which at one time evos claimed as directly transitional and now have backed off that, but still claim they are "transitional" but not a direct ancestor.
Well, how do you explain thousands of one species and none of the others for the most part? We see even within a small level of evolution, such as horse-like creatures changing into other horse-like creatures, or primitive horses evolving into modern horses, a great variety, at least 28 to 1.
Well, the changes from land mammal to whales are much larger, and we have numerous whale species. So is it not reasonable to think there should have been several thousand transitional species or families of species?
Where are they?
If fossil rarity is the answer, then how do you explain so many other species having more than, say, one of 2 fossils, and often there being dozens, hundreds, and even thousands.
Is there any factual basis for claiming fossil rarity, not for individual members, but for species that live for millions of year theoritically?
Imo, the fossil record is well-nigh proof against the Theory of Evolution.
This isn't really a problem for creationists and IDers because they are all horse-like creatures.
But it a very big problem for evolutionists. Evos assert fossil rarity to explain the severe shortage of transitional forms. The best evolutionists can do is come up with a handful.
Let's use the popular land mammal to whale evolutionary story. At best, we see 5 potential transitionals, and those are all extremely problematic, but for sake of argument, let's suppose they are valid candidates.
Where are the other several thousand?
You claim fossil rarity, but we see thousands of fossils of Baisoloraurus, which at one time evos claimed as directly transitional and now have backed off that, but still claim they are "transitional" but not a direct ancestor.
Well, how do you explain thousands of one species and none of the others for the most part? We see even within a small level of evolution, such as horse-like creatures changing into other horse-like creatures, or primitive horses evolving into modern horses, a great variety, at least 28 to 1.
Well, the changes from land mammal to whales are much larger, and we have numerous whale species. So is it not reasonable to think there should have been several thousand transitional species or families of species?
Where are they?
If fossil rarity is the answer, then how do you explain so many other species having more than, say, one of 2 fossils, and often there being dozens, hundreds, and even thousands.
Is there any factual basis for claiming fossil rarity, not for individual members, but for species that live for millions of year theoritically?
Imo, the fossil record is well-nigh proof against the Theory of Evolution.
QUOTE (Regular+Sep 4 2005, 07:00 AM)
I concur about the level of creationist resistance offered here by SoLoved - if he wants a theory to "fill his hole", I suggest he wears a hat while he is waiting.
LOL - Now even I find that to be very funny!
Since we're on the subject of your brain and it's back to school time:
Evolution and the Classroom
One day a 6 year old girl was sitting in the classroom. The teacher was going to explain evolution to the children. The teacher asked a little boy: Tommy do you see the tree outside?
Tommy: Yes.
Teacher: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?
Tommy: Yes.
Teacher: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.
Tommy: OK. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.
Teacher: Did you see God?
Tommy: No.
Teacher: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. He doesn't exist.
but then.............................
A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions. The teacher agreed and the little girl asked the boy: Tommy, do you see the tree outside?
Tommy: Yes.
Little girl: Tommy do you see the grass outside?
Tommy: Yessssss (getting tired of the questions by this time)
Little girl: Did you see the sky?
Tommy: Yessssss
Little Girl: Tommy, do you see the teacher?
Tommy: Yes
Little Girl: Do you see her brain?
Tommy: No
Little Girl: Does that mean she doesn't have one?
Hee hee hee.
SoLoved
LOL - Now even I find that to be very funny!
Since we're on the subject of your brain and it's back to school time:
Evolution and the Classroom
One day a 6 year old girl was sitting in the classroom. The teacher was going to explain evolution to the children. The teacher asked a little boy: Tommy do you see the tree outside?
Tommy: Yes.
Teacher: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?
Tommy: Yes.
Teacher: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.
Tommy: OK. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.
Teacher: Did you see God?
Tommy: No.
Teacher: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. He doesn't exist.
but then.............................
A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions. The teacher agreed and the little girl asked the boy: Tommy, do you see the tree outside?
Tommy: Yes.
Little girl: Tommy do you see the grass outside?
Tommy: Yessssss (getting tired of the questions by this time)
Little girl: Did you see the sky?
Tommy: Yessssss
Little Girl: Tommy, do you see the teacher?
Tommy: Yes
Little Girl: Do you see her brain?
Tommy: No
Little Girl: Does that mean she doesn't have one?
Hee hee hee.
SoLoved
Fossils are rare. Usually in nature, everything that dies decomposes or gets eaten or torn apart etc.
Only in those cases where due to circumstances this does not happen, a fossil might be formed. This is usually because the corpse is covered almost right away in such a way that predators can not reach it. And of course, another requirement is that decomposition should be limited also.
A major Mud flood that covers a nesting site or herd will do such a thing. Also Major disasters that kill predators along with prey, like huge fires, fast cold shifts and such, will kill off alot of those groups at once, making it possible for great groups of the same species to fossilize.
But you can not expect that there will be a convieniently placed disaster under ideal circumstances every 10.000 years just so you get a fossil step.
At least there are still some Tar pits that have a steady add-on of fossilized remains of a recent period of time.
If you drop a mount everest size piece of rock with great force on the earth, the resulting damage will at least leave some fossils. I guess, for scientific research, we should redirect comets to our planet so that every 50.000 years, we have such an impact to satisfy everyone.
Only in those cases where due to circumstances this does not happen, a fossil might be formed. This is usually because the corpse is covered almost right away in such a way that predators can not reach it. And of course, another requirement is that decomposition should be limited also.
A major Mud flood that covers a nesting site or herd will do such a thing. Also Major disasters that kill predators along with prey, like huge fires, fast cold shifts and such, will kill off alot of those groups at once, making it possible for great groups of the same species to fossilize.
But you can not expect that there will be a convieniently placed disaster under ideal circumstances every 10.000 years just so you get a fossil step.
At least there are still some Tar pits that have a steady add-on of fossilized remains of a recent period of time.
If you drop a mount everest size piece of rock with great force on the earth, the resulting damage will at least leave some fossils. I guess, for scientific research, we should redirect comets to our planet so that every 50.000 years, we have such an impact to satisfy everyone.
That's a nice explanation for fossilization rarity except it's nearly completely useless on the macro-level.
If what you are saying it true, it should be extremely unlikely to find fossils of the same species in more than one place because such events are so rare.
But we find Basoloraurus in large numbers in the Gulf states in the South, in Egypt and various other places in the world. So it's not very "rare" at all.
Why with a process not all that "rare" when applied to a species as a whole, based on actual fossils found, do we not find any of the thousands of transitionals we should see, specifically in the land mammal to whale evolutionary transition?
Just claiming fossil rarity is not sufficient to explain away the lack of data when we see thousands of fossils of some species all over the world. It's not "rare" at all for some species.
Think of it this way. It is rare to win the lottery.
But let's suppose some people won the lottery thousands of times, and they were all the people we knew for sure existed, but evolutionists claimed many more people existed, but they never won the lottery. Thinking on that can give you an idea of the inconsistency and illogic and unscientific nature of evolutionism.
If what you are saying it true, it should be extremely unlikely to find fossils of the same species in more than one place because such events are so rare.
But we find Basoloraurus in large numbers in the Gulf states in the South, in Egypt and various other places in the world. So it's not very "rare" at all.
Why with a process not all that "rare" when applied to a species as a whole, based on actual fossils found, do we not find any of the thousands of transitionals we should see, specifically in the land mammal to whale evolutionary transition?
Just claiming fossil rarity is not sufficient to explain away the lack of data when we see thousands of fossils of some species all over the world. It's not "rare" at all for some species.
Think of it this way. It is rare to win the lottery.
But let's suppose some people won the lottery thousands of times, and they were all the people we knew for sure existed, but evolutionists claimed many more people existed, but they never won the lottery. Thinking on that can give you an idea of the inconsistency and illogic and unscientific nature of evolutionism.
QUOTE (randman+Sep 8 2005, 05:08 AM)
In regard to the OP, you need to take a larger look at the fossil record. Take horses since you mentioned them. There were something like at least 28 or more transitional forms of previous horses that went into, according to evo thinking, producing a horse.
This isn't really a problem for creationists and IDers because they are all horse-like creatures.
But it a very big problem for evolutionists. Evos assert fossil rarity to explain the severe shortage of transitional forms. The best evolutionists can do is come up with a handful.
Let's use the popular land mammal to whale evolutionary story. At best, we see 5 potential transitionals, and those are all extremely problematic, but for sake of argument, let's suppose they are valid candidates.
Where are the other several thousand?
You claim fossil rarity, but we see thousands of fossils of Baisoloraurus, which at one time evos claimed as directly transitional and now have backed off that, but still claim they are "transitional" but not a direct ancestor.
Well, how do you explain thousands of one species and none of the others for the most part? We see even within a small level of evolution, such as horse-like creatures changing into other horse-like creatures, or primitive horses evolving into modern horses, a great variety, at least 28 to 1.
Well, the changes from land mammal to whales are much larger, and we have numerous whale species. So is it not reasonable to think there should have been several thousand transitional species or families of species?
Where are they?
If fossil rarity is the answer, then how do you explain so many other species having more than, say, one of 2 fossils, and often there being dozens, hundreds, and even thousands.
Is there any factual basis for claiming fossil rarity, not for individual members, but for species that live for millions of year theoritically?
Imo, the fossil record is well-nigh proof against the Theory of Evolution.
randman Posted on Sep 8 2005, 05:08 AM (pursuing the tireson complaint that the fossil record would be other than it is if evolution is true) stated:
"Let's use the popular land mammal to whale evolutionary story. At best, we see 5 potential transitionals, and those are all extremely problematic, but for sake of argument, let's suppose they are valid candidates.
"Where are the other several thousand?"
(randman, please correct me if my aging memory has failed me about whale fossils.)
The only whale fossils of which I am aware are the transitional land-to-sea forms found in Pakistan.
Once these critters had evolved sufficiently to live always in the sea, all further evolution would occur in the ocean. Only if they were living in an area where limestone was preciptating rapidly and whale corpses would have to have been buried more rapidly that they could be scavenged would there be any fossils. I don't believe that fossils have been found of any current existing deep-sea whales.
You might also explain why you think that there would be several thousand transitional forms of whales.
To give you an instance which demonstrates why fossilization is really a chancey thing; a unique Ordivician fossil was found some years ago in a creek east of Cincinnati, Ohio. It was never found before and has never been found since (to the best of my knowledge; I saw the book mention some 40 years ago). Neither ancestor nor descendant for that critter if the fossil record is supposed to be complete.
This isn't really a problem for creationists and IDers because they are all horse-like creatures.
But it a very big problem for evolutionists. Evos assert fossil rarity to explain the severe shortage of transitional forms. The best evolutionists can do is come up with a handful.
Let's use the popular land mammal to whale evolutionary story. At best, we see 5 potential transitionals, and those are all extremely problematic, but for sake of argument, let's suppose they are valid candidates.
Where are the other several thousand?
You claim fossil rarity, but we see thousands of fossils of Baisoloraurus, which at one time evos claimed as directly transitional and now have backed off that, but still claim they are "transitional" but not a direct ancestor.
Well, how do you explain thousands of one species and none of the others for the most part? We see even within a small level of evolution, such as horse-like creatures changing into other horse-like creatures, or primitive horses evolving into modern horses, a great variety, at least 28 to 1.
Well, the changes from land mammal to whales are much larger, and we have numerous whale species. So is it not reasonable to think there should have been several thousand transitional species or families of species?
Where are they?
If fossil rarity is the answer, then how do you explain so many other species having more than, say, one of 2 fossils, and often there being dozens, hundreds, and even thousands.
Is there any factual basis for claiming fossil rarity, not for individual members, but for species that live for millions of year theoritically?
Imo, the fossil record is well-nigh proof against the Theory of Evolution.
randman Posted on Sep 8 2005, 05:08 AM (pursuing the tireson complaint that the fossil record would be other than it is if evolution is true) stated:
"Let's use the popular land mammal to whale evolutionary story. At best, we see 5 potential transitionals, and those are all extremely problematic, but for sake of argument, let's suppose they are valid candidates.
"Where are the other several thousand?"
(randman, please correct me if my aging memory has failed me about whale fossils.)
The only whale fossils of which I am aware are the transitional land-to-sea forms found in Pakistan.
Once these critters had evolved sufficiently to live always in the sea, all further evolution would occur in the ocean. Only if they were living in an area where limestone was preciptating rapidly and whale corpses would have to have been buried more rapidly that they could be scavenged would there be any fossils. I don't believe that fossils have been found of any current existing deep-sea whales.
You might also explain why you think that there would be several thousand transitional forms of whales.
To give you an instance which demonstrates why fossilization is really a chancey thing; a unique Ordivician fossil was found some years ago in a creek east of Cincinnati, Ohio. It was never found before and has never been found since (to the best of my knowledge; I saw the book mention some 40 years ago). Neither ancestor nor descendant for that critter if the fossil record is supposed to be complete.
QUOTE
"I don't believe that fossils have been found of any current existing deep-sea whales.
You might also explain why you think that there would be several thousand transitional forms of whales.
You might also explain why you think that there would be several thousand transitional forms of whales.
It's interesting that you make this claim but find criticism of evolution tiresome.
First off, all current whale families have an abundance of fossils. I am not sure if every single whale species we see has fossils or not, but it seems likely that is the case.
Secondly, Baisoloraurus, the so-called transitional species that I mentioned is an aquatic whale-like creature, and it's fossils are so common that people in Mississippe and Lousiana often used fossilized bones in various ways around the house and farm.
The truth is whale fossils are quite common, and not all that rare. I am not sure where your ideas stem from, but you can spend a little time googling and verify these claims quite easily.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I don't believe that fossils have been found of any current existing deep-sea whales. You might also explain why you think that there would be several thousand transitional forms of whales. |
It's interesting that you make this claim but find criticism of evolution tiresome.
First off, all current whale families have an abundance of fossils. I am not sure if every single whale species we see has fossils or not, but it seems likely that is the case.
Secondly, Baisoloraurus, the so-called transitional species that I mentioned is an aquatic whale-like creature, and it's fossils are so common that people in Mississippe and Lousiana often used fossilized bones in various ways around the house and farm.
The truth is whale fossils are quite common, and not all that rare. I am not sure where your ideas stem from, but you can spend a little time googling and verify these claims quite easily.
You might also explain why you think that there would be several thousand transitional forms of whales.
I already explained it. Look at the horse evolution, which consists of horse species evolving into the modern horse species, according to evo claims. We see at least 28 species or transitional forms to produce modern horses. The level of change and evolution is quite small and slight when compared to the level of changes needed to evolve a land mammal to a whale.
Each adaptive trait would have to gradually evolve, and be exhibited over a range within a new species. Maybe sometimes more than one adaptive trait could emerge with a new species, but as we know, evolution would not take a strictly linear path, but would create more of a bush-like effect where there would be far more transitionals per final product so to speak.
In fact, it is not unreasonable to expect there to have been several orders, complete with families, maybe suborders, genera and species in between the most recent land mammals and whales. Among modern whales, we see 2 suborders and about 80 species or something like that. There is not a huge range of differences in the 2 suborders and species, and some species have been shown to be able to interbreed successfully and produce fertile offspring, which to me suggests they should be considered a single polytypic species.
But the point is that the range of differences between the nearest land mammals and whales are fairly massive, and such ranges of differences should be well-represented in the fossil record, but are not.
Randman
It seems your point that you have a hard time envisioning the various intermediary forms between a four legged land animal and a whale.
Lets look at the various creatures around today and see if any analogs(simular types) of the various types exist.
First a land animal that spends large amounts of time in water. Hippopotimus. Loves to spend most of it's time in water up to it's nostrils, which have moved from a normal position closer to the top of it's head.
Second, Beaver, flattened tail for propulsion, still four legs though.
Third, Seal, Largely hairless, back legs and tail semi-unified into flukelike structure, front legs mostly like fins but still useful for grasping.
Fourth, Sea Lion. back legs and tail even more flukelike, front legs totally finlike cannot grasp at all.
Fifth, Manatee, Gentlemen, we have a primative whale analog here. Totally aquatic, fully developed fluke and fins, nostril even nearer to top of head.
These creatures had nothing to do with the evolution of the whale, they meerly demonstrate that transitional creatures would be viable in and of themselves. The fossil record is sketchy for transitional species in the whales case but such is often true for sea creatures which tend to float after they die. Their remains are scattered by predators and uneven decay. It takes highly unusual circumstances to result in fossilization.
Grumpy
It seems your point that you have a hard time envisioning the various intermediary forms between a four legged land animal and a whale.
Lets look at the various creatures around today and see if any analogs(simular types) of the various types exist.
First a land animal that spends large amounts of time in water. Hippopotimus. Loves to spend most of it's time in water up to it's nostrils, which have moved from a normal position closer to the top of it's head.
Second, Beaver, flattened tail for propulsion, still four legs though.
Third, Seal, Largely hairless, back legs and tail semi-unified into flukelike structure, front legs mostly like fins but still useful for grasping.
Fourth, Sea Lion. back legs and tail even more flukelike, front legs totally finlike cannot grasp at all.
Fifth, Manatee, Gentlemen, we have a primative whale analog here. Totally aquatic, fully developed fluke and fins, nostril even nearer to top of head.
These creatures had nothing to do with the evolution of the whale, they meerly demonstrate that transitional creatures would be viable in and of themselves. The fossil record is sketchy for transitional species in the whales case but such is often true for sea creatures which tend to float after they die. Their remains are scattered by predators and uneven decay. It takes highly unusual circumstances to result in fossilization.
Grumpy
For a good writeup on transitional whales, I refer you to
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
As to modern whale fossils, while I've seen a number of whale skeletons, they were not fossils. I'm not saying they don't exist, I've just never seen any.
Arthur
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
As to modern whale fossils, while I've seen a number of whale skeletons, they were not fossils. I'm not saying they don't exist, I've just never seen any.
Arthur
Grumpy, I don't have a hard time envisioning it as possible, and that imaginative hypothesizing is the initial stregth of evolutionary theory.
But comparing that hypothesis to the actual facts of the fossil record is where the problem comes in.
We just don't see the fossils.
We do see a few potential transitional candidates, such as the numerous Baisoloraurus fossils, and others that are highly dubious to be called cetacean at all, such as Pakicetus, but without a rationale explanation for why we don't see any of the major forms evolving among the thousands of species that would need to have lived through this transition, the theory just does not add up.
Imagination cannot replace and trump empirical evidence.
Fossilization is not so rare among whales or whale-like species. We see numerous fossils, and they are quite common, among known whales and whale-like species such as Baisoloraurus.
The only data then is that whales and whale-like species tend to have relatively high fossilization rates. That's what we know if we don't assume that hundreds it not thousands of transitional forms must have existed, and then reason that because they must have existed and we see no fossils for them, that fossilization is rare.
The positive data indicates whales are well-represented in the fossil record.
That to me is very strong evidence against the ToE.
But comparing that hypothesis to the actual facts of the fossil record is where the problem comes in.
We just don't see the fossils.
We do see a few potential transitional candidates, such as the numerous Baisoloraurus fossils, and others that are highly dubious to be called cetacean at all, such as Pakicetus, but without a rationale explanation for why we don't see any of the major forms evolving among the thousands of species that would need to have lived through this transition, the theory just does not add up.
Imagination cannot replace and trump empirical evidence.
Fossilization is not so rare among whales or whale-like species. We see numerous fossils, and they are quite common, among known whales and whale-like species such as Baisoloraurus.
The only data then is that whales and whale-like species tend to have relatively high fossilization rates. That's what we know if we don't assume that hundreds it not thousands of transitional forms must have existed, and then reason that because they must have existed and we see no fossils for them, that fossilization is rare.
The positive data indicates whales are well-represented in the fossil record.
That to me is very strong evidence against the ToE.
The whole hypothesis of evolution is based on unobservable events happening in an unobservable past, and most of it (especially ‘chemical evolution’) denies experimental reality.
One could argue, then, that evolution is ‘the science of fiction’.
To give you another example, and another hole in the evolutionary theory.......
Hole #One Beelion: Evolution cannot explain why the skies and the stars mark the seasons, days, and years.
The Bible tells us these facts: (for the atheist, please ignore the word God when reading the rest of the facts)
Genesis 1:14-16:
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night,
and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth."
And it was so.
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.
He also made the stars.
And so it is.
Our system was designed for us by an Intelligent Designer who knew our curious minds would soon learn what the skies and the stars had to teach us.
Hole #Two Beelion: Evolutionists like to scoff at the Greeks earlier interpretation on the earth being the center of the
universe.
The Western world used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was an idea that the
ancient Greeks first proposed - that the other planets, the Sun and the Moon all circle the Earth, while
the distant fixed stars all look on inwards to us as the center of creation. This idea suited the
Christian outlook of the times, for it physically placed the human race where God had placed them
psychologically - as the crowning glory of His creation.
Copernicus was one of the first scientists to challenge this idea. It is now accepted that all experimental
evidence and all our best theories point to the fact that the Earth is, astronomically speaking, an
ordinary member of a solar system. The Sun is actually what sits at the center of this system and is the
binding force that keeps it together.
Well, er, now they're saying....
Experimental evidence also points to the fact that this solar system is not the center of our galaxy.
In fact, we can see the rest of our galaxy in the sky - the Milky Way - and even with the naked eye it
is possible to realize that we are not at its center.
If theologians had been the first to propose evolution's 'big bang' theory of the formation of the universe, scientists would have scoffed at the idea.
Hole #Three Beelion: Natural Selection. Darwin believed that if new varieties could arise in a short time to suit their environment, then given enough time, any number of new characteristics, to the extent of totally new creatures, could appear. This was how, he believed, lungs originally arose in a lungless world, and feathers in a featherless one. Darwin did not know how heredity really works, but people today should know better.
He did not know, for instance, that what is passed on in reproduction is essentially a whole lot of parcels of information (genes), or coded instructions.
What natural selection actually does is get rid of information. It is not capable of creating anything new, by definition. In the above example, the plants became better able to survive dry weather because of the elimination of certain genes; i.e. they lost a portion of the information which their ancestors had. The information for the longer roots was already in the parent population; natural selection
caused nothing new to arise in, or be added to, the population.
The price paid for adaptation, or specialization, is always the permanent loss of some of the information in that group of organisms. If the environment were changed back so that shorter roots were the only way for plants to survive, the information for these would not magically ‘reappear’; the population would no longer be able to adapt in this direction. The only way for a short-rooted variety to arise as an adaptation to the environment would be if things began once more with the ‘mixed’ or ‘mongrel’ parent population, in which both types of genes
were present.
********
I was a little tired when I wrote this - a good excuse for you to criticize and not deal with the issues. Please forgive me and look past unintended misconbobulations to see the big pictures.
Some 'holes' for you to ponder this week.
SoLoved
One could argue, then, that evolution is ‘the science of fiction’.
To give you another example, and another hole in the evolutionary theory.......
Hole #One Beelion: Evolution cannot explain why the skies and the stars mark the seasons, days, and years.The Bible tells us these facts: (for the atheist, please ignore the word God when reading the rest of the facts)
Genesis 1:14-16:
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night,
and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth."
And it was so.
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.
He also made the stars.
And so it is.
Our system was designed for us by an Intelligent Designer who knew our curious minds would soon learn what the skies and the stars had to teach us.
Hole #Two Beelion: Evolutionists like to scoff at the Greeks earlier interpretation on the earth being the center of the universe.
The Western world used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was an idea that the
ancient Greeks first proposed - that the other planets, the Sun and the Moon all circle the Earth, while
the distant fixed stars all look on inwards to us as the center of creation. This idea suited the
Christian outlook of the times, for it physically placed the human race where God had placed them
psychologically - as the crowning glory of His creation.
Copernicus was one of the first scientists to challenge this idea. It is now accepted that all experimental
evidence and all our best theories point to the fact that the Earth is, astronomically speaking, an
ordinary member of a solar system. The Sun is actually what sits at the center of this system and is the
binding force that keeps it together.
Well, er, now they're saying....
Experimental evidence also points to the fact that this solar system is not the center of our galaxy.
In fact, we can see the rest of our galaxy in the sky - the Milky Way - and even with the naked eye it
is possible to realize that we are not at its center.
If theologians had been the first to propose evolution's 'big bang' theory of the formation of the universe, scientists would have scoffed at the idea.
Hole #Three Beelion: Natural Selection. Darwin believed that if new varieties could arise in a short time to suit their environment, then given enough time, any number of new characteristics, to the extent of totally new creatures, could appear. This was how, he believed, lungs originally arose in a lungless world, and feathers in a featherless one. Darwin did not know how heredity really works, but people today should know better. He did not know, for instance, that what is passed on in reproduction is essentially a whole lot of parcels of information (genes), or coded instructions.
What natural selection actually does is get rid of information. It is not capable of creating anything new, by definition. In the above example, the plants became better able to survive dry weather because of the elimination of certain genes; i.e. they lost a portion of the information which their ancestors had. The information for the longer roots was already in the parent population; natural selection
caused nothing new to arise in, or be added to, the population.
The price paid for adaptation, or specialization, is always the permanent loss of some of the information in that group of organisms. If the environment were changed back so that shorter roots were the only way for plants to survive, the information for these would not magically ‘reappear’; the population would no longer be able to adapt in this direction. The only way for a short-rooted variety to arise as an adaptation to the environment would be if things began once more with the ‘mixed’ or ‘mongrel’ parent population, in which both types of genes
were present.
********
I was a little tired when I wrote this - a good excuse for you to criticize and not deal with the issues. Please forgive me and look past unintended misconbobulations to see the big pictures.
Some 'holes' for you to ponder this week.
SoLoved QUOTE (SoLoved+Sep 12 2005, 06:44 AM)
Hole #Two Beelion: Evolutionists like to scoff at the Greeks earlier interpretation on the earth being the center of the universe.
The Western world used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was an idea that the
ancient Greeks first proposed - that the other planets, the Sun and the Moon all circle the Earth, while
the distant fixed stars all look on inwards to us as the center of creation. This idea suited the
Christian outlook of the times, for it physically placed the human race where God had placed them
psychologically - as the crowning glory of His creation.
Copernicus was one of the first scientists to challenge this idea. It is now accepted that all experimental
evidence and all our best theories point to the fact that the Earth is, astronomically speaking, an
ordinary member of a solar system. The Sun is actually what sits at the center of this system and is the
binding force that keeps it together.
Well, er, now they're saying....
Experimental evidence also points to the fact that this solar system is not the center of our galaxy.
In fact, we can see the rest of our galaxy in the sky - the Milky Way - and even with the naked eye it
is possible to realize that we are not at its center.
Copernicus' theory didn't address our solar system's relationship to our galaxy.
Copernicus was correct.
As far as I know there was never a serious scientific view that our solar system was the center of our galaxy, though it took until modern time to gather enough information so as to figure out where in our galaxy our solar system is. ("a backwater arm in an unfashionable section" (Douglas Adams)). Life would not be possible anywhere near the center of the galaxy.
Which brings us to:
QUOTE
Hole #One Beelion: Evolution cannot explain why the skies and the stars mark the seasons, days, and years. This has NOTHING to do with Evolution, but more importantly, the basic structure of our solar system and its behavior WAS explained by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler (laws of planetary motion) and Newton, with the reason for the seasons being the last to be understood. The Moon, which makes life on earth possible, controls our day length, and seasons. The moon keeps our degree of tilt within seasonal limits and without it the earth would go through 90+ degrees of tilt on its axis. The moon also slowed down the rotational speed of the earth. The length of an earth day has about doubled since the moon's violent formation and its tidal forces continue to slow our rotational velocity. As the moon continues to recede from the earth our stability will continue to decrease to a point that life on earth will become somewhat problematic.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hole #One Beelion: Evolution cannot explain why the skies and the stars mark the seasons, days, and years. |
This has NOTHING to do with Evolution, but more importantly, the basic structure of our solar system and its behavior WAS explained by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler (laws of planetary motion) and Newton, with the reason for the seasons being the last to be understood. The Moon, which makes life on earth possible, controls our day length, and seasons. The moon keeps our degree of tilt within seasonal limits and without it the earth would go through 90+ degrees of tilt on its axis. The moon also slowed down the rotational speed of the earth. The length of an earth day has about doubled since the moon's violent formation and its tidal forces continue to slow our rotational velocity. As the moon continues to recede from the earth our stability will continue to decrease to a point that life on earth will become somewhat problematic.
Hole #Three Beelion: Natural Selection. Darwin believed that if new varieties could arise in a short time to suit their environment, then given enough time, any number of new characteristics, to the extent of totally new creatures, could appear. This was how, he believed, lungs originally arose in a lungless world, and feathers in a featherless one. Darwin did not know how heredity really works, but people today should know better. He did not know, for instance, that what is passed on in reproduction is essentially a whole lot of parcels of information (genes), or coded instructions.
What natural selection actually does is get rid of information. It is not capable of creating anything new, by definition. In the above example, the plants became better able to survive dry weather because of the elimination of certain genes; i.e. they lost a portion of the information which their ancestors had. The information for the longer roots was already in the parent population; natural selection
caused nothing new to arise in, or be added to, the population.
The price paid for adaptation, or specialization, is always the permanent loss of some of the information in that group of organisms. If the environment were changed back so that shorter roots were the only way for plants to survive, the information for these would not magically ‘reappear’; the population would no longer be able to adapt in this direction. The only way for a short-rooted variety to arise as an adaptation to the environment would be if things began once more with the ‘mixed’ or ‘mongrel’ parent population, in which both types of genes
were present.
Natural selection does not necessarily get rid of information. In fact, the increasing number of genes as you go up the tree of life argues for just the opposite.
While natural selection is incapable of creating anything new, reproduction certainly is, and it is natural selection which can then "determine" that this is "better". (note "better" might just be better adapted to a food source that is otherwise untapped, creating a new niche for life to fill)
Your other examples, lungs and feathers are likewise uninformed. The long slow development of lungs can be traced through slow gradual changes. The primitive vertebrate heart was devoid of coronary support and obtained oxygen only from luminal blood. By supplying more oxygen to the heart the primitive lungs, a mere collection of capillary rich tissue, were important in ancient animals for sustained activity. This grew in size but were external. Then came structural changes that maximized surface area followed by the addition of protective tissue (gills), followed by musculature that could drive water through the gills even if the fish wasn't moving (as in many sharks). The movement towards "air breathing" was driven by the fact that warm water contains little O2 and fish will instinctively gulp air at the surface when O2 levels drop. A whole line of fish developed that relied on this ability, eventually forming a "labryinth" where air was retained. This lung function then influenced cardiovascular adaptations of tetrapods because their divided cardiovascular system isolates the right side of the heart from pulmonary oxygen. Three innovations allowed for this isolation. In amphibians oxygen-rich blood from cutaneous and buccal respiration enters the right side of the heart. In chelonians and lepidosaurs the intracardiac shunt provides oxygen-rich blood to the right side of the heart. In mammals, birds and crocodilians, support of the heart by coronary vasculature replaces the shunt.
Birds probably have the most advanced lung system which they inherited from their dinosaur predecessors and then improved on. Many of their bones are perforated and hollow, and contain air-filled sacs connected to the lungs and trachea. There is a set of anterior air sacs and a set of posterior sacs with the lungs located in between. The primitive function of these sacs was to lighten the structure, important in birds, but useful in large animals to reduce the otherwise enormous weight of the bones.
Instead of inflating their lungs directly, birds inflate the anterior air sacs first and then the sacs are compressed pushing air through the lungs. At the same time the posterior sacs compress and expel air to the trachea. The posterior set then expands and draws air from the lungs. It takes two "breaths" to move one intake of air through the sacs and lungs.
The advantage though is there isn't any dead air. The lungs are never filled with CO2 rich air that needs to be expelled. Fresh air flows continuously through the A sacs to the lungs to the P sacs and then out. Air always moves in the same direction. A bird's lungs do not contain the collection of tiny sacs that mamallian lungs do but instead contains slim tubes that are covered with capillaries to extract oxygen.
A similar path of increased complexity surrounds the evolution of scales into feathers, because though feathers are essentially scales, they are a much more complex structure.
Both of these destroy the argument that traits are "lost" via evolution. Just the opposite, elegant complexity derives from eons of small steps with natural selection being the arbiter of what works and what doesn't.
Arthur
To soloved
Evolution is about the life on the Earth not the stars in the sky. Astronomy eexplained the days, years and seasons some 375 years ago(Galileo). Don't be silly, actually read what you get off of the creationist website before you post it. It is a terrible thing for a man to make of himself a fool, it is infinitely worse for him to allow others to do so for him.
Evolution is about the life on the Earth not the stars in the sky. Astronomy eexplained the days, years and seasons some 375 years ago(Galileo). Don't be silly, actually read what you get off of the creationist website before you post it. It is a terrible thing for a man to make of himself a fool, it is infinitely worse for him to allow others to do so for him.
Hole #Two Beelion: Evolutionists like to scoff at the Greeks earlier interpretation on the earth being the center of the
Once more, read and try to understand the meaning BEFORE you post these quotes. Again, Astronomy. The Greeks began the scientific era of man. Their ideas led to the scientific methods we use today. Prior to that era everything was explained as the work of the Gods. The Greeks began looking for natural causes of the events around them, thus beginning the sciences we have today. Fid they get everything correct? No, but they had at least begun the search.
Again, Cosmology. I'm not sure of Edwin Hubble's religious beliefs and it is irrelivant. If the theory explains the facts and stands up to scientific scrutiny we could care less who first proposed it.(Telativity was first proposed by a Jewish patent clerk)
Again, Cosmology. I'm not sure of Edwin Hubble's religious beliefs and it is irrelivant. If the theory explains the facts and stands up to scientific scrutiny we could care less who first proposed it.(Telativity was first proposed by a Jewish patent clerk)
Hole #Three Beelion: Natural Selection. Darwin believed that if new varieties could arise in a short time to suit their environment, then given enough time, any number of new characteristics, to the extent of totally new creatures, could appear. This was how, he believed, lungs originally arose in a lungless world, and feathers in a featherless one. Darwin did not know how heredity really works, but people today should know better.He did not know, for instance, that what is passed on in reproduction is essentially a whole lot of parcels of information (genes), or coded instructions.
What natural selection actually does is get rid of information. It is not capable of creating anything new, by definition. In the above example, the plants became better able to survive dry weather because of the elimination of certain genes; i.e. they lost a portion of the information which their ancestors had. The information for the longer roots was already in the parent population; natural selection caused nothing new to arise in, or be added to, the population.
The price paid for adaptation, or specialization, is always the permanent loss of some of the information in that group of organisms. If the environment were changed back so that shorter roots were the only way for plants to survive, the information for these would not magically ‘reappear’; the population would no longer be able to adapt in this direction. The only way for a short-rooted variety to arise as an adaptation to the environment would be if things began once more with the ‘mixed’ or ‘mongrel’ parent population, in which both types of geneswere present.
Yet one more time, but you at least got the the branch of science right. Evolution never seems to throw any "information" away. The Genome projects have made it painfully obvious that the amount of unused DNA sequinces outweighs that used. We still have genes identical to those found in carrots, for gosh sakes. We have reptile DNA, fish DNA, ape DNA...Wherever we've been on the trail of life the DNA is still with us. We even have DNA for human traits we don't individually show(recessive genes). Our Chromozones are, collectively, the worst packrats in the universe, no "information" is permanently "lost", it's all still there!!! Wherever you copied this stuff from, boy did they get it wrong!!! This is a perfect example of CSBS misinformation,I've heard this over and over again but repition of a lie does not a truth make unless your a right wing Republican.
The Science of Forensics is based on unobserved events that happened in the past yet our courts accept fingerprint and DNA evidence as having much more weight than eye witness testimony.(If the fingerprint and DNA evidence says it was one person and eye witnesses point to another, who wins?). Evolution has the "fingerprints" left by life on Earth, CSBS has the eye witness hearsay of some interpreters of the Bible. Some believers are much more realistic in their viewpoints:
An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
More than 7500 clergy have signed this open letter.
Proponents of the CSBS are just a noisy minority attempting to use the political process to enforce their Taliban like view on us all.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Hole #One Beelion: Evolution cannot explain why the skies and the stars mark the seasons, days, and years.
Evolution is about the life on the Earth not the stars in the sky. Astronomy eexplained the days, years and seasons some 375 years ago(Galileo). Don't be silly, actually read what you get off of the creationist website before you post it. It is a terrible thing for a man to make of himself a fool, it is infinitely worse for him to allow others to do so for him.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hole #One Beelion: Evolution cannot explain why the skies and the stars mark the seasons, days, and years. |
Evolution is about the life on the Earth not the stars in the sky. Astronomy eexplained the days, years and seasons some 375 years ago(Galileo). Don't be silly, actually read what you get off of the creationist website before you post it. It is a terrible thing for a man to make of himself a fool, it is infinitely worse for him to allow others to do so for him.
Hole #Two Beelion: Evolutionists like to scoff at the Greeks earlier interpretation on the earth being the center of the
Once more, read and try to understand the meaning BEFORE you post these quotes. Again, Astronomy. The Greeks began the scientific era of man. Their ideas led to the scientific methods we use today. Prior to that era everything was explained as the work of the Gods. The Greeks began looking for natural causes of the events around them, thus beginning the sciences we have today. Fid they get everything correct? No, but they had at least begun the search.
QUOTE
If theologians had been the first to propose evolution's 'big bang' theory of the formation of the universe, scientists would have scoffed at the idea.
Again, Cosmology. I'm not sure of Edwin Hubble's religious beliefs and it is irrelivant. If the theory explains the facts and stands up to scientific scrutiny we could care less who first proposed it.(Telativity was first proposed by a Jewish patent clerk)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If theologians had been the first to propose evolution's 'big bang' theory of the formation of the universe, scientists would have scoffed at the idea. |
Again, Cosmology. I'm not sure of Edwin Hubble's religious beliefs and it is irrelivant. If the theory explains the facts and stands up to scientific scrutiny we could care less who first proposed it.(Telativity was first proposed by a Jewish patent clerk)
Hole #Three Beelion: Natural Selection. Darwin believed that if new varieties could arise in a short time to suit their environment, then given enough time, any number of new characteristics, to the extent of totally new creatures, could appear. This was how, he believed, lungs originally arose in a lungless world, and feathers in a featherless one. Darwin did not know how heredity really works, but people today should know better.He did not know, for instance, that what is passed on in reproduction is essentially a whole lot of parcels of information (genes), or coded instructions.
What natural selection actually does is get rid of information. It is not capable of creating anything new, by definition. In the above example, the plants became better able to survive dry weather because of the elimination of certain genes; i.e. they lost a portion of the information which their ancestors had. The information for the longer roots was already in the parent population; natural selection caused nothing new to arise in, or be added to, the population.
The price paid for adaptation, or specialization, is always the permanent loss of some of the information in that group of organisms. If the environment were changed back so that shorter roots were the only way for plants to survive, the information for these would not magically ‘reappear’; the population would no longer be able to adapt in this direction. The only way for a short-rooted variety to arise as an adaptation to the environment would be if things began once more with the ‘mixed’ or ‘mongrel’ parent population, in which both types of geneswere present.
Yet one more time, but you at least got the the branch of science right. Evolution never seems to throw any "information" away. The Genome projects have made it painfully obvious that the amount of unused DNA sequinces outweighs that used. We still have genes identical to those found in carrots, for gosh sakes. We have reptile DNA, fish DNA, ape DNA...Wherever we've been on the trail of life the DNA is still with us. We even have DNA for human traits we don't individually show(recessive genes). Our Chromozones are, collectively, the worst packrats in the universe, no "information" is permanently "lost", it's all still there!!! Wherever you copied this stuff from, boy did they get it wrong!!! This is a perfect example of CSBS misinformation,I've heard this over and over again but repition of a lie does not a truth make unless your a right wing Republican.
QUOTE
The whole hypothesis of evolution is based on unobservable events happening in an unobservable past, and most of it (especially ‘chemical evolution’) denies experimental reality.One could argue, then, that evolution is ‘the science of fiction’.
The Science of Forensics is based on unobserved events that happened in the past yet our courts accept fingerprint and DNA evidence as having much more weight than eye witness testimony.(If the fingerprint and DNA evidence says it was one person and eye witnesses point to another, who wins?). Evolution has the "fingerprints" left by life on Earth, CSBS has the eye witness hearsay of some interpreters of the Bible. Some believers are much more realistic in their viewpoints:
An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
More than 7500 clergy have signed this open letter.
Proponents of the CSBS are just a noisy minority attempting to use the political process to enforce their Taliban like view on us all.
Grumpy
Holes in the Evolution Theory. Part 1 - September 14, 2005
Hole #1beelion1 - Equifinality
The theory of evolution as of September 14, 2005 has never been proven. It has become a belief system, or 'religion'. If evolution is to gain any credibility in the Intelligent Design world, then they must try to cooperate by operating under a multi-finality principle, which allows for different results from the beginning to the present. Similar conditions, such as our present condition on earth, can lead to different end effects, or beginnings.
Equifinality: Using a variety of methods to reach the same conclusion. The thorn in the side of evolution.
As the public debate continues in this age of knowledge, evolution will soon lose credibility. Unable to answer the very questions that evolution sought to answer, people will lose interest and disbelief will follow. It is important for the evolutionist to accept the principle of multiple working hypotheses; used in every facet of science, except apparently, evolution.
What I'm trying to say here is that the evolutionist must have an open mind, and consider many alternatives. For example, one hypotheses could be 'what if this was consciously, intelligently designed'. In this hypotheses you would try to determine why a particular function of the body was 'designed'. By showing the 'why', you now have a provable, repeatable, testable' discovery. What the evolutionist is currently hypothesizing is evolution from micro organisms; something that is not provable, not repeatable, and not testable. But you still insist on believing in your 'science' that doesn't even operate according to basic scientific principles.
Evolution science is falling into the grip of a 'ruling theory'.
The danger of being stuck in a ruling theory is that no matter what your results are, you will always apply them to your ruling theory. Your imagination will work overtime to fit your results into your notion that all results must prove the theory. This is major hole in the evolution theory, you can deny, but it's no lie!
The evolutionist has debated how evolution occurred, now you must debate that evolution occurred.
Good science does not use a bunch of propaganda and legal barriers to prevent relevant questions (even opposing ones) from being asked, nor does it rely on enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the ruling theory. Instead, it welcomes the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and confronts critical arguments head on.
Look for Part 2 coming soon to a forum near you.
Have a great day!
SoLoved
Hole #1beelion1 - EquifinalityThe theory of evolution as of September 14, 2005 has never been proven. It has become a belief system, or 'religion'. If evolution is to gain any credibility in the Intelligent Design world, then they must try to cooperate by operating under a multi-finality principle, which allows for different results from the beginning to the present. Similar conditions, such as our present condition on earth, can lead to different end effects, or beginnings.
Equifinality: Using a variety of methods to reach the same conclusion. The thorn in the side of evolution.As the public debate continues in this age of knowledge, evolution will soon lose credibility. Unable to answer the very questions that evolution sought to answer, people will lose interest and disbelief will follow. It is important for the evolutionist to accept the principle of multiple working hypotheses; used in every facet of science, except apparently, evolution.
What I'm trying to say here is that the evolutionist must have an open mind, and consider many alternatives. For example, one hypotheses could be 'what if this was consciously, intelligently designed'. In this hypotheses you would try to determine why a particular function of the body was 'designed'. By showing the 'why', you now have a provable, repeatable, testable' discovery. What the evolutionist is currently hypothesizing is evolution from micro organisms; something that is not provable, not repeatable, and not testable. But you still insist on believing in your 'science' that doesn't even operate according to basic scientific principles.
Evolution science is falling into the grip of a 'ruling theory'.The danger of being stuck in a ruling theory is that no matter what your results are, you will always apply them to your ruling theory. Your imagination will work overtime to fit your results into your notion that all results must prove the theory. This is major hole in the evolution theory, you can deny, but it's no lie!
The evolutionist has debated how evolution occurred, now you must debate that evolution occurred.
Good science does not use a bunch of propaganda and legal barriers to prevent relevant questions (even opposing ones) from being asked, nor does it rely on enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the ruling theory. Instead, it welcomes the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and confronts critical arguments head on.
Look for Part 2 coming soon to a forum near you.
Have a great day!
SoLoved
Soloved
It's obvious you are incapable of understanding what science is. Science cannot "prove" a theory, however evolution is supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence. I do not have to believe anything, evolution explains the evidence through logical explanation of the evidence. If CS has any competing hypotheses it is welcome to submit them to the exact same process as every other hypothsis in science does. Noone is stopping you. put up your evidence.
It's obvious you are incapable of understanding what science is. Science cannot "prove" a theory, however evolution is supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence. I do not have to believe anything, evolution explains the evidence through logical explanation of the evidence. If CS has any competing hypotheses it is welcome to submit them to the exact same process as every other hypothsis in science does. Noone is stopping you. put up your evidence.
Equifinality: Using a variety of methods to reach the same conclusion. The thorn in the side of evolution.
Despite what Steven E Jones thinks, science IS open to different hypotheses when working on a theory. Many hypotheses are tested and discarded before a theory is accepted by the community. Dr. Carl Sagan called this process a "Darwinian selection among multiple working hypotheses." It is an important part of the scientific method.
It's obvious that once again you know not of which you speak(a nice way of not saying"LIAR,LIAR PANTS ON FIRE). You have never been near two(or more) scientists discussing competeing hypothses or you would not say anything so inane. As Dr. Sagan said, Darwinian,red in tooth and claw.
Soloved, your batting 0 for a "Beelion" lately. Your heart doesn't seem to be in it, your reaching for semantic arguements from lame "scientists" who havent a clue. These people could not find their head but for the fact that it's jammed securely up their fundament at all times. Find some better debaters to quote, this is just too easy.
Grumpy
QUOTE
The theory of evolution as of September 14, 2005 has never been proven. It has become a belief system, or 'religion'. If evolution is to gain any credibility in the Intelligent Design world, then they must try to cooperate by operating under a multi-finality principle, which allows for different results from the beginning to the present. Similar conditions, such as our present condition on earth, can lead to different end effects, or beginnings.
It's obvious you are incapable of understanding what science is. Science cannot "prove" a theory, however evolution is supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence. I do not have to believe anything, evolution explains the evidence through logical explanation of the evidence. If CS has any competing hypotheses it is welcome to submit them to the exact same process as every other hypothsis in science does. Noone is stopping you. put up your evidence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The theory of evolution as of September 14, 2005 has never been proven. It has become a belief system, or 'religion'. If evolution is to gain any credibility in the Intelligent Design world, then they must try to cooperate by operating under a multi-finality principle, which allows for different results from the beginning to the present. Similar conditions, such as our present condition on earth, can lead to different end effects, or beginnings. |
It's obvious you are incapable of understanding what science is. Science cannot "prove" a theory, however evolution is supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence. I do not have to believe anything, evolution explains the evidence through logical explanation of the evidence. If CS has any competing hypotheses it is welcome to submit them to the exact same process as every other hypothsis in science does. Noone is stopping you. put up your evidence.
Equifinality: Using a variety of methods to reach the same conclusion. The thorn in the side of evolution.
Despite what Steven E Jones thinks, science IS open to different hypotheses when working on a theory. Many hypotheses are tested and discarded before a theory is accepted by the community. Dr. Carl Sagan called this process a "Darwinian selection among multiple working hypotheses." It is an important part of the scientific method.
QUOTE
The danger of being stuck in a ruling theory is that no matter what your results are, you will always apply them to your ruling theory. Your imagination will work overtime to fit your results into your notion that all results must prove the theory. This is major hole in the evolution theory, you can deny, but it's no lie!
It's obvious that once again you know not of which you speak(a nice way of not saying"LIAR,LIAR PANTS ON FIRE). You have never been near two(or more) scientists discussing competeing hypothses or you would not say anything so inane. As Dr. Sagan said, Darwinian,red in tooth and claw.
Soloved, your batting 0 for a "Beelion" lately. Your heart doesn't seem to be in it, your reaching for semantic arguements from lame "scientists" who havent a clue. These people could not find their head but for the fact that it's jammed securely up their fundament at all times. Find some better debaters to quote, this is just too easy.
Grumpy
QUOTE (SoLoved+Sep 14 2005, 10:13 PM)
Holes in the Evolution Theory. Part 1 - September 14, 2005
Hole #1beelion1 - Equifinality
For example, one hypotheses could be 'what if this was consciously, intelligently designed'. In this hypotheses you would try to determine why a particular function of the body was 'designed'. By showing the 'why', you now have a provable, repeatable, testable' discovery. What the evolutionist is currently hypothesizing is evolution from micro organisms; something that is not provable, not repeatable, and not testable. But you still insist on believing in your 'science' that doesn't even operate according to basic scientific principles.
SoSoLoved,
Have you ever been to a F1 car race?
F1 car racing is an interesting sport. A bunch of engineers/mechanics design and build what THEY think is the BEST racer.
But what they THINK, is not what decides the day.
Its proven on the track.
Now, next season you will see a number of the ideas from the leading machines incorporated into the other's designs.
Thus F1 cars have evolved over the years, and continue to do so.
But the mechanics and designers, while intelligent, are just putting their "mutations" to the test.
The checkered flag decides the winner.
So it is with natural selection, but on a different scale. Depending on the species millions to billions or more slight variations enter the race each generation, and only the winners are allowed to create the next years "model", over time, what works best will always win out.
So the process is essentially identical to one that has "intelligent design" as its foundation.
Problem for you is there is no way to PROVE that said designer exists.
You attempt to "disprove" evolution by attempting to prove a negative. e.g. Your continued argument that Evolution COULDN'T happen because its implausible.
You claim that the complexity of organisms argues for a designer but fail to realize that "design" is the foundation of evolution.
It may appear implausible, but probability allows for the improbable.
The reason E supporters don't care what you think is you show up to the debate with no proof that there is a designer or that Evolution can't take place.
In this entire debate (which I just finished reviewing), I could find no case where you (or other ID supporters) made the slightest dent in evolutionary theory.
Arthur
Hole #1beelion1 - EquifinalityFor example, one hypotheses could be 'what if this was consciously, intelligently designed'. In this hypotheses you would try to determine why a particular function of the body was 'designed'. By showing the 'why', you now have a provable, repeatable, testable' discovery. What the evolutionist is currently hypothesizing is evolution from micro organisms; something that is not provable, not repeatable, and not testable. But you still insist on believing in your 'science' that doesn't even operate according to basic scientific principles.
SoSoLoved,
Have you ever been to a F1 car race?
F1 car racing is an interesting sport. A bunch of engineers/mechanics design and build what THEY think is the BEST racer.
But what they THINK, is not what decides the day.
Its proven on the track.
Now, next season you will see a number of the ideas from the leading machines incorporated into the other's designs.
Thus F1 cars have evolved over the years, and continue to do so.
But the mechanics and designers, while intelligent, are just putting their "mutations" to the test.
The checkered flag decides the winner.
So it is with natural selection, but on a different scale. Depending on the species millions to billions or more slight variations enter the race each generation, and only the winners are allowed to create the next years "model", over time, what works best will always win out.
So the process is essentially identical to one that has "intelligent design" as its foundation.
Problem for you is there is no way to PROVE that said designer exists.
You attempt to "disprove" evolution by attempting to prove a negative. e.g. Your continued argument that Evolution COULDN'T happen because its implausible.
You claim that the complexity of organisms argues for a designer but fail to realize that "design" is the foundation of evolution.
It may appear implausible, but probability allows for the improbable.
The reason E supporters don't care what you think is you show up to the debate with no proof that there is a designer or that Evolution can't take place.
In this entire debate (which I just finished reviewing), I could find no case where you (or other ID supporters) made the slightest dent in evolutionary theory.
Arthur
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 15 2005, 12:34 AM)
It's obvious you are incapable of understanding what science is. Science cannot "prove" a theory, however evolution is supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence. I do not have to believe anything, evolution explains the evidence through logical explanation of the evidence. If CS has any competing hypotheses it is welcome to submit them to the exact same process as every other hypothsis in science does. Noone is stopping you. put up your evidence.
I stand corrected. I will no longer say the 'theory' of evolution has not been proven! Instead, let me make one correction:
Evolution, as of September 14, 2005, has never been proven. It has become a belief system, or 'religion'. If evolution is to gain any credibility in the Intelligent Design world, then they must try to cooperate by operating under a multi-finality principle, which allows for different results from the beginning to the present. Similar conditions, such as our present condition on earth, can lead to different end effects, or beginnings.
Throughout these creation/ID/Evolution debates we have put up layer upon layer of evidence. Each time, you try to dismiss us. Since the good people who believe in a God are not the scientist, they can only provide you with the hypotheses or pre-suppositions. It is up to the scientific to community to work their magic and to try and get along.
It seems even pointless to respond to y'all sometimes because all you do is look for technical or disagreeable issues you can attack.
For example, one hypotheses could be 'what if this was consciously, intelligently designed'. In this hypotheses you would try to determine why a particular function of the body was 'designed'. By showing the 'why', you now have a provable, repeatable, testable' discovery. What the evolutionist is currently hypothesizing is evolution from micro organisms; something that is not provable, not repeatable, and not testable. But you still insist on believing in your 'science' that doesn't even operate according to basic scientific principles.
Why don't you respond to a legitimate challenge? Again, this is probably pointless to ask because you'll just say it's not a legitimate challenge, and that is because you have decided that nothing will penetrate your wall of evolution.
Just because you think you've heard it before and then dismiss it, doesn't mean that it isn't true or worthy of consideration.
SoLoved
I stand corrected. I will no longer say the 'theory' of evolution has not been proven! Instead, let me make one correction:
Evolution, as of September 14, 2005, has never been proven. It has become a belief system, or 'religion'. If evolution is to gain any credibility in the Intelligent Design world, then they must try to cooperate by operating under a multi-finality principle, which allows for different results from the beginning to the present. Similar conditions, such as our present condition on earth, can lead to different end effects, or beginnings.
Throughout these creation/ID/Evolution debates we have put up layer upon layer of evidence. Each time, you try to dismiss us. Since the good people who believe in a God are not the scientist, they can only provide you with the hypotheses or pre-suppositions. It is up to the scientific to community to work their magic and to try and get along. It seems even pointless to respond to y'all sometimes because all you do is look for technical or disagreeable issues you can attack. For example, one hypotheses could be 'what if this was consciously, intelligently designed'. In this hypotheses you would try to determine why a particular function of the body was 'designed'. By showing the 'why', you now have a provable, repeatable, testable' discovery. What the evolutionist is currently hypothesizing is evolution from micro organisms; something that is not provable, not repeatable, and not testable. But you still insist on believing in your 'science' that doesn't even operate according to basic scientific principles.
Why don't you respond to a legitimate challenge? Again, this is probably pointless to ask because you'll just say it's not a legitimate challenge, and that is because you have decided that nothing will penetrate your wall of evolution.
Just because you think you've heard it before and then dismiss it, doesn't mean that it isn't true or worthy of consideration.
SoLovedQUOTE (adoucette+Sep 15 2005, 02:00 AM)
QUOTE (SoLoved+Sep 14 2005, 10:13 PM)
Holes in the Evolution Theory. Part 1 - September 14, 2005
Hole #1beelion1 - Equifinality
For example, one hypotheses could be 'what if this was consciously, intelligently designed'. In this hypotheses you would try to determine why a particular function of the body was 'designed'. By showing the 'why', you now have a provable, repeatable, testable' discovery. What the evolutionist is currently hypothesizing is evolution from micro organisms; something that is not provable, not repeatable, and not testable. But you still insist on believing in your 'science' that doesn't even operate according to basic scientific principles.
SoSoLoved,
Have you ever been to a F1 car race?
F1 car racing is an interesting sport. A bunch of engineers/mechanics design and build what THEY think is the BEST racer.
But what they THINK, is not what decides the day.
Its proven on the track.
Now, next season you will see a number of the ideas from the leading machines incorporated into the other's designs.
Thus F1 cars have evolved over the years, and continue to do so.
But the mechanics and designers, while intelligent, are just putting their "mutations" to the test.
The checkered flag decides the winner.
So it is with natural selection, but on a different scale. Depending on the species millions to billions or more slight variations enter the race each generation, and only the winners are allowed to create the next years "model", over time, what works best will always win out.
So the process is essentially identical to one that has "intelligent design" as its foundation.
Problem for you is there is no way to PROVE that said designer exists.
You attempt to "disprove" evolution by attempting to prove a negative. e.g. Your continued argument that Evolution COULDN'T happen because its implausible.
You claim that the complexity of organisms argues for a designer but fail to realize that "design" is the foundation of evolution.
It may appear implausible, but probability allows for the improbable.
The reason E supporters don't care what you think is you show up to the debate with no proof that there is a designer or that Evolution can't take place.
In this entire debate (which I just finished reviewing), I could find no case where you (or other ID supporters) made the slightest dent in evolutionary theory.
Arthur
The checkered flag does not decide the winner.
It is the will and the spirit of the driver that decides the winner.
If everything is equal, and the machines are tuned to the exact same specifications; there will still be a winner, and it will be won by the person who has perseverance, guts, will, and spirit. The mind goes into overdrive , calculating their next move. Something I'm sure your mind is doing right now!
Will, spirit, guts, perseverance, determination, calcuation, etc....This is something that science, as of September 15, 2005, is unable to measure.
This is why you cannot fathom a Designer.
It is also not true that what works best will always win out, because the same guys can race each other in the same cars 3 times in a row with the possibility of 3 different results.
It is the motivated spirit that looks somewhere within to find the will to win - either again or for the first time.
Since it's football season I will prove my statement by pointing out that the New Orleans Saints (bless their hearts) went on to beat the Carolina Panthers 23-20 last Sunday. Their determination to pull out a win for their destroyed city demonstrates that, all things being equal (any given Sunday as they say), willpower and spirit is what decided the day.
Now, since YOU cannot prove that there is a Designer, then you throw that idea out the window. Bad mistake. A completely ignorant and prejudiced action that leads to the possibility of false results.
Then you go on to grossly overstate anything I have ever said in these forums. You say we haven't put a dent in your theories, just because you say it doesn't make it real. The whole evolutionistic scientific community is either mad as heck or worried like heck.
I'm not looking for a fight - I'm just looking for fair treatment. 80% or more of Americans believe in God. Evolutionists are distorting the view of God, causing mass confusion, and contributing to a society that no longer feels the need to have moral values. What for, they think, there is no God, we're all a bunch of animals.
You may go into the 'how dare you' state of shock at what I just said. But y'all really need to think about what you're contributing to what used to be a fairly decent and stable society. And you can even argue about that and avoid being accountable, but the truth is, all you have to do is look at the TV shows, movies, music, politicians, to see what's happening. People are losing the stability of good moral values, because certain groups are trying to convince us that there is no God. Y'all are in that category.
The natural selection theory does not hold water in my opinion. I believe man is a unique creature. Not like any animal. Other biological organisms are not capable of acting like a human. It fails me to come up with a natural selection method that would only create one species that can act human.
How the heck do you explain natural selection when you staring at a man who lives in Siberia or Alaska and it's 20 below zero outside. Why oh why doesn't he have a natural coat to keep him warm? When and why did man shed his ape like coat? And for that matter, why do apes have coats anyway - aren't they usually where its warm? (Oh, and by the way, who gave man his first coat? God)
I believe that man is superior to animals, uniquely designed and created to run this planet we call earth.
If you believe that man is superior to animals (which I believe you do) because of intelligence and other features, then why haven't more species developed with human like intelligence. Why aren't other creatures capable of challenging us in some meaningful way?
If you do not believe that man is superior to animals, then how do you explain why humans act so differently than animals? I mean the only thing humans may require that animals already have is a warm coat. So why do we have cities and schools and music and art, etc. If I knew of a great ape university I'd be sure to tell you where to go. (just kidding ha/ha).
I have oodles and oodles of evidence, that I will continue to present here. Hopefully it won't take beelions and beelions of years to convince one evolutionist to turn from their fruitless ways.
Nice try,
SoLoved
Hole #1beelion1 - EquifinalityFor example, one hypotheses could be 'what if this was consciously, intelligently designed'. In this hypotheses you would try to determine why a particular function of the body was 'designed'. By showing the 'why', you now have a provable, repeatable, testable' discovery. What the evolutionist is currently hypothesizing is evolution from micro organisms; something that is not provable, not repeatable, and not testable. But you still insist on believing in your 'science' that doesn't even operate according to basic scientific principles.
SoSoLoved,
Have you ever been to a F1 car race?
F1 car racing is an interesting sport. A bunch of engineers/mechanics design and build what THEY think is the BEST racer.
But what they THINK, is not what decides the day.
Its proven on the track.
Now, next season you will see a number of the ideas from the leading machines incorporated into the other's designs.
Thus F1 cars have evolved over the years, and continue to do so.
But the mechanics and designers, while intelligent, are just putting their "mutations" to the test.
The checkered flag decides the winner.
So it is with natural selection, but on a different scale. Depending on the species millions to billions or more slight variations enter the race each generation, and only the winners are allowed to create the next years "model", over time, what works best will always win out.
So the process is essentially identical to one that has "intelligent design" as its foundation.
Problem for you is there is no way to PROVE that said designer exists.
You attempt to "disprove" evolution by attempting to prove a negative. e.g. Your continued argument that Evolution COULDN'T happen because its implausible.
You claim that the complexity of organisms argues for a designer but fail to realize that "design" is the foundation of evolution.
It may appear implausible, but probability allows for the improbable.
The reason E supporters don't care what you think is you show up to the debate with no proof that there is a designer or that Evolution can't take place.
In this entire debate (which I just finished reviewing), I could find no case where you (or other ID supporters) made the slightest dent in evolutionary theory.
Arthur
The checkered flag does not decide the winner.It is the will and the spirit of the driver that decides the winner.
If everything is equal, and the machines are tuned to the exact same specifications; there will still be a winner, and it will be won by the person who has perseverance, guts, will, and spirit. The mind goes into overdrive , calculating their next move. Something I'm sure your mind is doing right now!
Will, spirit, guts, perseverance, determination, calcuation, etc....This is something that science, as of September 15, 2005, is unable to measure.
This is why you cannot fathom a Designer.
It is also not true that what works best will always win out, because the same guys can race each other in the same cars 3 times in a row with the possibility of 3 different results.
It is the motivated spirit that looks somewhere within to find the will to win - either again or for the first time.
Since it's football season I will prove my statement by pointing out that the New Orleans Saints (bless their hearts) went on to beat the Carolina Panthers 23-20 last Sunday. Their determination to pull out a win for their destroyed city demonstrates that, all things being equal (any given Sunday as they say), willpower and spirit is what decided the day.
Now, since YOU cannot prove that there is a Designer, then you throw that idea out the window. Bad mistake. A completely ignorant and prejudiced action that leads to the possibility of false results.Then you go on to grossly overstate anything I have ever said in these forums. You say we haven't put a dent in your theories, just because you say it doesn't make it real. The whole evolutionistic scientific community is either mad as heck or worried like heck.
I'm not looking for a fight - I'm just looking for fair treatment. 80% or more of Americans believe in God. Evolutionists are distorting the view of God, causing mass confusion, and contributing to a society that no longer feels the need to have moral values. What for, they think, there is no God, we're all a bunch of animals.
You may go into the 'how dare you' state of shock at what I just said. But y'all really need to think about what you're contributing to what used to be a fairly decent and stable society. And you can even argue about that and avoid being accountable, but the truth is, all you have to do is look at the TV shows, movies, music, politicians, to see what's happening. People are losing the stability of good moral values, because certain groups are trying to convince us that there is no God. Y'all are in that category.
The natural selection theory does not hold water in my opinion. I believe man is a unique creature. Not like any animal. Other biological organisms are not capable of acting like a human. It fails me to come up with a natural selection method that would only create one species that can act human.How the heck do you explain natural selection when you staring at a man who lives in Siberia or Alaska and it's 20 below zero outside. Why oh why doesn't he have a natural coat to keep him warm? When and why did man shed his ape like coat? And for that matter, why do apes have coats anyway - aren't they usually where its warm? (Oh, and by the way, who gave man his first coat? God)
I believe that man is superior to animals, uniquely designed and created to run this planet we call earth.
If you believe that man is superior to animals (which I believe you do) because of intelligence and other features, then why haven't more species developed with human like intelligence. Why aren't other creatures capable of challenging us in some meaningful way?
If you do not believe that man is superior to animals, then how do you explain why humans act so differently than animals? I mean the only thing humans may require that animals already have is a warm coat. So why do we have cities and schools and music and art, etc. If I knew of a great ape university I'd be sure to tell you where to go. (just kidding ha/ha).
I have oodles and oodles of evidence, that I will continue to present here. Hopefully it won't take beelions and beelions of years to convince one evolutionist to turn from their fruitless ways. Nice try,
SoLoved
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.