Printable View
That had nothing to do with the question. Why aren't there other monkey-humans walking around these days? I think in your mind you answered it in your other post, but just wanted to make sure you knew what you were talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Naah ... you only missed it - see post #85 ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
You are making the mistake of thinking that monkeys are inferior to extinct species of early humans. Monkeys are well adapted species for living in the environments where they reside. There is no objective trait that will determine what species survives natural selection, such as "being smarter" like you have mistakenly assumed.
Earlier homonids would have been proficient in tool use and maybe even communication, but if a new variant would show up that is more proficient in exactly those areas that made the older ones succesful, and provided that he survives and procreates, his descendents will graduately displace the older variants.
Monkeys didn't suffer from the same level of competition and thus lot's of monkey species remain, each well adapted to their respective environments.
That makes sense, but wouldn't that be called a combination of natural selection and adaptation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Hey creationists: explain rudimentary organs: you know like the tail bone, or some people actually being born with a tail. Why did God decided we needed a tail bone if we weren't meant to have a tail ? And why do some people have tails ?
Also, the appendix, what's it still good for ?
You misunderstand the theory of evolution. Man DID NOT evolve from monkeys, simply the current money species of today had a common ancestor with humans.Quote:
I am a Creationist because the idea of the bible being wrong doesn't work in my mind. The bible said He created MAN on the sixth day in His image. And if my memory serves me right, evolution says that man evolved from monkeys, and back and back to single celled organisms.
Again, you completely misunderstand the process of evolution. It is not pre-destined that monkeys will evolve into human-like creatures. Each species evolved due to its circumstances, not some magical, pre-ordained destiny. The common ancestor of humans and monkeys was probably a tree-dwelling primate. Some of these went onto the plains as the forest dwindled, forced to by habitat change and the need to adapt, and gradually developed into humans (and other species) whereas the ones living in the trees did not need to evolve in this way, and instead adapted to their own environment differently.Quote:
Answer me this, IF we evolved from monkeys, why in the world are there still monkeys? And why isn't the world pulling out a Planet of the Apes effect? Aren't the monkeys supposed to become more human-like?
Evolution is determined by circumstance, it is not a linear path.
There were human species living until very recently. As they were competing with homo sapiens, they were either less adapted and became extinct, or perhaps were absorbed into the more successful species in part (the neanderthal gene theory is controversial). Natural selection has (we think) wiped out all other species of human.Quote:
That had nothing to do with the question. Why aren't there other monkey-humans walking around these days? I think in your mind you answered it in your other post, but just wanted to make sure you knew what you were talking about.
Also knows as.....evolution. See, we made it in the end.Quote:
That makes sense, but wouldn't that be called a combination of natural selection and adaptation?
Another point: why do human fetuses have tails, and look almost identical to every other mammalian fetus?
The tail bone protects your rectum and other parts in that area from getting smashed whenever you fall on your butt. Deformities exist all the time, this one simply resembles a tail.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
I don't know, I'm not a doctor, and that's not my strong point. Do you know of what the appendix DID?Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
He did... the human eye!!! More "evidence"! Oh my god! The amount of research to show how eyes could evolve... :wall: At least stick to picking holes in things, such proofs are only own goals.
Zain: there are some forks, just not always forks. Two different things. Simple.
A fork is one species becoming two, no fork is one species drifting over time to become what is termed a seperate one.
Reproduction perfect ROFLMAO!!!
Infertility clinics.
it takes 20 million sperm for one egg.
the sheer number of early abortions that the mother didn't even know was a pregnancy
recurrent miscarriages
ectopic pregnancies
deaths of the mother before modern medicine
parasitic twins
conjoined twins
congenital abnormailties
Yeah, perfect... NEXT!
~:smoking:
Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfTheIsles
The appendix and the caecuma re extremely well developed in herbivores where it is a key part in digestion. Over time it is slowly decreasing in size as it has no / limited use and so evolutionary pressure is against it.
Rather like some snakes that have vestigial back legs.
~:smoking:
Ahh ... that's the keyword ... no creation vs. evolution thread without chick tracts (sorry for regularly postings these ... but I am a regular aficionado, and as everything in these discussions is a repitition anyway...):Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Big Daddy?
This should answer all your questions ~:)
Please note the spectacularly witty and convincing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy with mesmerizing stare
Okay then, I didn't missunderstand you. Common language means a fork, like a fork in the road. That's what I imagined when I read that and it completely struck me misinterpretly.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The process is perfect, you think chance could make all of those little parts and little processes work perfectly??? No! If it were chance it wouldn't be near as complicated. It would be simple, like calling in a stork or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I didn't know that. That's interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Now you're just being lazy. Louis pointed out early in this thread that all species are transitionary in the theory of evolution, as a species that live today could be the precursor of species living in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
[Sigh]. Everything that you see around is an example of transition from the past into the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
What do you want? To walk down the road and a dog to spring up and converse in English? That would pretty much prove creationism.
The tail bone protects one's arse? Hardly - we'd be better off without it. The gluteals absorb most impact. All it does is occasionally get fractured. It is a vestigial browth from the embryo. the human goes through phases of looking like an amphibian, then a reptile, then finally a mammal. Why if not as that is how animals evolved? God and his little jokes?
~:smoking:
I am so going to hate myself for getting back into this, but:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
Since you want stunningly obvious transitional forms that you can see, try amphibians. You know, frogs, newts etc.
Not quite fish, not quite reptiles. What you might call fish-reptiles. See there's this fish with a simple lung called - guess what, a lung-fish. And it has some amphibian characteristics. Then there are fish which use their fins as limbs on the margins of land, but live almost wholly in the water. These fish have the basic pentadactyl (five-toed) arrangement in those fins which is found in all land animals.
Is that simple enough for you? Or does it have to be a monkey-cat or a mollusc-rhinocerous?
Zain...Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
It works firstly as it's had billions of years to improve the model. Amoebas replicate very simply. They divide down the middle. Easy peasy. Over time things did get more complex.
But the failsafes thrown into the system are evident in how imperfect it is. 20 MILLION sperm to fertilise one egg. Talk about wastage. And there's not a 100% chance of success that copulation will result in fertilisation. A certain time of the month is required for starters.
Oh, and you left / ignored the long list of errors that I could think of off the top of my head. ERRORS = LACK OF PERFECTION!
The argument "it's complicated so God had to have done it" only works in Church. It has evolved to the state it is, and it works well enough, even with the large numbers of errors inherent the system.
~:smoking:
I love this method of arguing. :wall:Quote:
Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)
"My argument has been shown to have been flawed. Insert identical and irrelevant argument."
Every fossil is a transitional fossil, we just haven't always found what they are transitioning between yet. Mankind is the transitional state between our ancestors and what we will evolve into. The simple fact is that a tiny proportion of dead animals will a) fossilise and b) be found in an identifiable state.
That said, there have been several well-documented finds that have species of human which show a progressively less sloping forehead and a gradually larger cranial capacity. This tends to point to the features of modern humans developing.
Yes, I was being lazy, but I'm talking about transitions of the animals we see. A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history. It speaks of cats on Noah's ark. Now you're going to say that evolution is a long process, and so, what? If no change appears in a cat for thousands of years, how does that prove evolution? It's all been the same for thousands of years, since everything was created by God. Natural Selection is the only "evolution" we ever will see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Look, I know this is a waste of time, but can I make a suggestion to the creationists out there to actually read On the Origin of Species?
I would also recommend to enquiring minds the book 'Darwin and the Barnacle' by Rebecca Stott (ISBN 0-571-21609-9). It's not at all dry, and provides the real story of Darwin's work in taxonomy. By classifying and researching the humble barnacle over twenty years, he established his reputation as a serious biologist and found staggering amounts of evidence for the theory of natural selection. The evidence you keep asking for and then dismissing.
It's also the story of how this man of deep faith (he was planning to be a cleric) found his observations challenging that faith, and his reluctance to change his mind until he could convince himself.
After all, guys, I have read your Bible :2thumbsup:
typo, thanks for pointing that out. I was talking about the book of Enoch.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
You have to be careful what you write in some of these threads. I see that some hillbilly evolutionist cannot understand information as a whole, but can only attack tid-bit unintended points. Maybe I should attack the following:
SO, MICROEVOLUTION IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!!! OH MY!!! DID EVOLUTION SPEED UP TO A RATE THAT CAN BE SEEN HAPPENING WITH THE HUMAN EYE? ARE YOU INSUINATING THAT TIME HAVE CHANGED DREMATICALLY?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I could go on.:laugh4: :laugh4:
Until you actually look at the evidence (I better say, go back and click on the links or else you may go off on how I've presented no evidence, no I better post - http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...=view&page=233 you will continue to open your mouth in ignorance. (Sorry again, I ment speak)Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
So, God can speak everything into existance, but can't light things up while waiting for the third day? (Another example of tidbit hunting.)Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
You never gave the name of the site. Typical. Have you considered the other Creation Science web sites? Have you checked out http://www.irc.org? Or, will you blindly discount them because of your biased unresearched views?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
No one that I know of has said, "Only the Bible". Typical again. Try to remember the past posts before you make claims like this. Which version of the Bible? - All of them. There are a few that were translated loosly, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to discover which ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
And what made it evolve? Did it just realize it's mistakes and change? How does something incapable of induvidual thinking make that decision to change? And how did it change? That's the thing that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
How do you know a cat has been a cat for all recorded history? I mean, by your own logic, you haven't seen them for anything longer than your own life, and even then you haven't seen all cats. How can you prove to me that a cat you haven't seen didn't change one night into a rat? Because that's the proof you require from your opponents - you haven't personally seen evolution happen in front of your eyes, so it must be bunkum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
Yet you're happy to believe some chap resurrected himself from the dead, without seeing that. Why are your standards of proof so flexible?
By cat, I presume you mean the common domesticated cat, felis silvestris catus.Quote:
A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history.
Which was, what? 4,000 years ago? It is absurd to expect a species to evolve beyond recognition in that space of time.Quote:
It speaks of cats on Noah's ark.
It doesn't, but neither would it disprove it. In any case, cats most certainly have changed. Have you considered all the different varieties of breeds of cat? They have not yet been selectively bred long enough to be incompatible with other breeds, but with a much longer amount of time, it would happen. The fact is, human have been on the earth for hardly an eyeblink.Quote:
If no change appears in a cat for thousands of years, how does that prove evolution?
Or, perhaps the cats will not significantly evolve. Some species, such as sharks and crocodiles, have not needed to, because they were adapted enough for their habitats, which didn't massively change. They did evolve a bit, mind you, but not to the extent that other groups, such as mammals, did.
Well it seems like Rory gave a few good counterarguments to your answers to my questions (getting complicated ?). I'm not going to waste bandwidth repeating him. So it's time for some more questions !
Male nipples. What's the point ? Female nipples have a point of course, but why do men have nipples. Because that's how God created them, you think. Okay, but considering he created Man before Woman and Man had no need for nipples, then why do men still have nipples ? Did God change his mind about men and said "Let them have Nipples !" ?? It makes no sense.
Men and Dinosaurs. You still haven't answered this one. If men had always existed, did they live when there were dinosaurs ? How come there are no mentions of dinosaurs in the bible ? If it is indeed a reliable source for the early history of the world, how come it doesn't mention them ??
Are dinosaurs fake ? Then why are their bones found ? Did God put them there to test our faith ? :inquisitive: :laugh4:
Cavemen. When Adam and Eve got kicked out of paradise, and had a few children, they seemed to be pretty 'civilized', I saw no mention in the bible of people living in caves, hunting to survive, etc. (okay, maybe my limited bible knowledge) What were cavemen then ?
Jesus binds atoms, hilarious ! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Does anyone else find it ironic that he says gluons are not real since no one has actually seen them ? Anyone seen God lately ? :laugh4:
Also, the kid is referring to an old pre-quantum physics model (Rutherford ? or even Bohr ?) when he makes the planetary comparison.
I guess I'm getting tired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I believe Jesus raised himself from the dead because the bible says so and because I have faith. I have also personally seen the lives of people change because of the decision of accepting him into their heart. The day before they would drink and do naughty things people he wasn't married to, then the day after he just couldn't stomach that. Their lifestyle changed because they had something to guage their morals onto.
My standard right now are simply because I'm tired and I'm tired of saying the same things over and over, I apoligize for my weak proof in this particular moment.
Dogs. Bred from wolves. This has been mentioned before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
Evolution can be seen happening in bacteria. Cells divide every 20 minutes. Put them in an increasingly strong solution of antibiotic and they will evolve resistance. Et voila. One down.
my point was that god on day three decided to make himself into a lightbulb?
Noah's flood. great explanation. More interstingly how did all the animals fit onto the Arc? What did they eat? Where did they decacate? Let's leave aside the meterological evidence for a flood, and focus on one person making an arc for all animals on the planet, bringing in food - and all animals leaving alive? I know, best stick to details, as the story itself is absurd. Facinating theory on how the water got into the air - nearly concealed the rather more obvious problem! :laugh4:
How can you tell which version of the bible is translated loosely? There are few origional texts, and even fewer people read the language.
Ah, of course - only a few posts ago you can tell us that all the books not in the bible were not to do with creation! Aramaic, Latin, Greek - there's no end to your talents!!! :laugh4:
Zain. See the little thing above re: bacteria. The ones that aren't "fit" die. The ones that are live. No thought goes into this. It just happens. The exact change is one that makes it more "fit". It may be obvious (an enzyme to catabolise an antibiotic) or maybe not. It doesn't have to have a reason, it just does.
~:smoking:
Natural selection.Quote:
And what made it evolve? Did it just realize it's mistakes and change? How does something incapable of induvidual thinking make that decision to change? And how did it change? That's the thing that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Another point: why do human fetuses have tails, and look almost identical to every other mammalian fetus?
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Does that have ANY relevance to the quote WHATSOEVER? If it does, please point it out, I'd love to know.
"I'm right and you're wrong nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo," sounds extrememly childish to me, blindly following what people wrote down a few thousand years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
So, did the stars get made and just NOT produce any light WHATSOEVER until something says do it?Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
All of recorded history being roughly 5000 years, where as the human species as we know it is about 100 000 years old and life existed almost a billion years ago (according to evolution yeah yeah). Macro evolution is a slow process, you can't expect to prove it in a few years, it takes millennia for a different species to form.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
You know the clock analogy don't you ? If the entire existence of earth was scaled to 24h, the existence of mankind would only take up the last 5 minutes or so. Evolution is slow, 5000 years is nothing compared to the timescale of evolution.
Belief. Sure, that's fine. Just don't get that mixed up with other matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
Belief is important. If I believed that killing someone would prevent the earth from ending I'd do it. Suicide bombers believe they are doing the right thing. Belief is a very powerful thing. It just requires... belief. Holding up a view on the origins of species requires one hell of a lot more than that - or at least should do.
~:smoking:
Have you ever heard of genetic algoritmes ? They use the principles of evolution to solve optimization problems, they're quite effective if you use them right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
Does God make sure they work too ?
I guess it's like hair, what's the point of hair being on your head? To protect your head from getting burned by the sun. But, what about your shoulders, they have no significant hair. I guess the nipples are there simply for filling up space, but that's something I've never had to contimplate. Oh, the connection between hair and nipple, hair is there to fill up space, make everyone look different, possibly the nipple is simply there to fill up space. Don't you think we would look strange without them?Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
A Leviathan, which is considered a dinosaur, is mentioned in the books of Job, Psalm, and Isaiah. The Behemoth, is mentioned in the book of Job. Humans and Dinosaurs lived at the same time, otherwise Creation would be false.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
I don't think that they were very civilized after Adam and Eve. They could very easily have spread out over the land after some reproduction and began to live like cavemen, but I don't know entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Explain the Platypus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...3/platypus.asp
Human bodies aren't machines made to do everything perfectly, which leads to mutations. The sperm or egg may have some small mutations, and when they fuse, the mutations are present in every single replicated cell for the foetus, which has a change. Normally, under uncivilised conditions, an animal would gain some different traits, eg perhaps being an albino. Now, if you were an albino in the North Pole, and hence were a camouflaged predator or prey, it is an advantage, and the chance of you living long enough to reproduce is increased. Similarly, an albino herbivore prey living in the jungle will get spotted and made into lunch quickly, and die before it can reproduce. Hence, the more wanted traits will get passed down more, and the species changes. I forgot the link and the site, but I've read an article showing that even in the past 100 years or so, the 'tall' gene has become more prevalent within the homo sapiens species.
Zain, God raised Jesus from the dead. And yes, that is one arguement that is very ironclad. The lives that have been changed by God, supernaturally, is with out a doubt very convincing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
Of course not, not if no man had nipples, than we would laugh at the idea of a man having nipples.
So there musn't have been a lot of dinosaurs around back then, right, otherwise they would have been mentioned a bit more don't you think ? After all, giant carnivores tend to be the kind of thing that you mention in a book about your history....Quote:
A Leviathan, which is considered a dinosaur, is mentioned in the books of Job, Psalm, and Isaiah. The Behemoth, is mentioned in the book of Job. Humans and Dinosaurs lived at the same time, otherwise Creation would be false.
Fossil findings would indicate the existence of a lot more dinosaurs then there seem to be mentioned in the bible though. Also, why didn't they get a ride on the ark ?
Ok, I'm seeing a trend that I've seen in other debates of this nature:
'Creationists' attack evolution instead of defending creationism.
'Evolutionists' attack creationism instead of defending evolution.
This is why these kind of discussions are...
Anyway, it may just be that I am an enlightened Gahist :laugh4:, but I would rather change these debates up, say a theistic evolution vs. naturalistic evolution discussion...
Same as before, they've got traits that allow them to be very successful in the environment they live in, and so they will reproduce more and be all over Australia. It's really not incredibly much to this evolution once you understand the concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Because we are mammals, and that's the way God made us.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfTheIsles
I've studied that in my IPC class. Yes, I've heard of it. It's rather interesting, but untrue if you believe in Creationism.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
I agree. Try arguing with 10 people on a matter for a few hours and see how long you stay clear minded. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Has this been scientifically proven? Do they have examples of them in little slides you can look at under a microscope? If they do, then sure, that's a corrective program, basically, created by God, to where if something's wrong it corrects it. But, that process isn't the same in all the induviduals in a species, so therefore wouldn't work in an evolutionary standpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Two words, Natural Selection. Nice examples Ti!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
What is there to explain? :dizzy2:Quote:
Explain the Platypus.
Which argument is ironclad? :help: The first one is anyting but ironclad. the second is a) a complete strawman and b) not ironclad, at least not the "supernatural" part.Quote:
Zain, God raised Jesus from the dead. And yes, that is one arguement that is very ironclad. The lives that have been changed by God, supernaturally, is with out a doubt very convincing.
Or they refer to giant squid, whales, elephants or hippos. The idea that humans and dinosaurs lived side-by-side has no evidence, and I am quite frankly astounded that anybody would seriously make that claim.Quote:
A Leviathan, which is considered a dinosaur, is mentioned in the books of Job, Psalm, and Isaiah. The Behemoth, is mentioned in the book of Job. Humans and Dinosaurs lived at the same time, otherwise Creation would be false.
Not really, unless you look at it from the view that it would contradict the theory of evolution if there weren't any, which would indeed be odd.Quote:
Don't you think we would look strange without them?
That is just validating the conclusion using the conclusion as evidence. So why do we exhibit primitive, obsolete features such as a tail at that stage? If we are created in God's image, why do we look identical to every other animal, which is not? If mankind is so special, why did we get placed in the same group as mere mammals? Why do we function in essentially the same way? Why did God give us a tail, only to get rid of it before birth? All of these are compelling evidence that mammals share a common ancestor, whilst saying "God did it because he did" is not answering the question, let alone providing evidence for your viewpoint.Quote:
Because we are mammals, and that's the way God made us.
I respect your belief. But you're right, it is faith. No evidence but hearsay. I'm glad you've seen good things happen because of that faith. But I'm sure you are also aware many very terrible things have happened because of that blind faith in God too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
Faith and science are based on very different things. It is certainly possible to reconcile your faith in your God with evolutionary theory. Indeed, many argue evolution would be a very creditable reflection on a supernatural being.
I'm tired too. I would urge you to read the books I recommended and stop feeling that your faith is threatened by evolution. But to remain stubborn is equally your choice.
Being faithful doesn't require you to stop thinking.
Zain: natural selection will inevitably lead to more and more mutations accumulating and becoming dominant, which leads to the evolution of a species. If you can accept natural selection, it should be easy to accept evolution. Or so I like to think
So, something that nobody has seen ever says something which nobody has heard and it is an ironclad statement? Well, frankly, that just cracks me up. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
By the way, evolution has changed lives very significantly as well. So have politicians, but does it mean that you trust in whatever they say?
Haha, true. I don't know the answer then, besides God did it because he wanted to.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
I honestly believed that the humans wiped out the dinosaurs that are extinct because they were a huge threat. You've got the carnivores, who will eat you. Kill them off and save your hide. You've got the omnivores, who will eat all of the vegetation all around. Kill them off and get some food. I that possibly the extinct ones all died out before the flood. Don't you think that with the Earth completely covered in water that that would cover up these carcasus with multiple layers and explain the huge dating on these fossils? It's a thought. Or maybe some of the living dinosaurs did get a ride on the ark, which would explain crocodiles still being around.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Do you speak english, or are you useing one of those web browser translators? I bet you don't even realize that you just made my point (the point I made in the post you were quoting)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Thanks again! I posted research that you choose to ignore. Are you writing about yourself in this one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Sure but it expalins why you won't see 'macro-evolution' and does based on science (carbon dating and all that) instead of faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
Genetic algoritmes are computer programs, just lines of code to solve complex optimization problems.Quote:
Has this been scientifically proven? Do they have examples of them in little slides you can look at under a microscope? If they do, then sure, that's a corrective program, basically, created by God, to where if something's wrong it corrects it. But, that process isn't the same in all the induviduals in a species, so therefore wouldn't work in an evolutionary standpoint.
Also: info on the evolution of the eye !
Everything else I wrote got ignored? Noa's flood, microbe biology 101.
Is that due to lack of defence for the points raised?
That Jesus was raised from the dead is Ironclad to Christians. Noone else. Basically why it's a belief. Please, let's keep belief and evidence seperate! One can believe whatever they want. That's fine.
natural selection is evolution. Organisms selected naturally which slowly over time evolve.
I feel that the argument seems to shift. We get something mentioned, refuted then dropped. But like a prophet in a book it rises up from the dead later in the same page as though nothing had happened.
OK nipples: we have two - most of the time. We have a "nipple line" that runs down both sides of our body. We can sometimes have more than the usual two, and women can even have a third breast. Pretty odd - until you remember that other mammals have up to 6 nipples.
As with all mutations, either God mucked it up with his selection, or evolution is showing evidence of mutation.
Reenk Roink, can that be discussed? I assume the difference is how the process commenced. If so, how could we tell?
~:smoking:
Yes, I speak english. Words such as 'insuinating' and 'drematically' don't appear in my vocabulary though. You just spouted a whole load of rubbish hoping to intimidate people into avoid looking at the horridly spelt caps locked passage, as you had NOTHING relevant to say. Micro-evolution happens between generations, so you cannot see it in front of your eyes. Which is your argument, which is, frankly, rubbish.
Your links include people saying that what the bible is true because it says so and hence everything is wrong. I just put it in simple terms so that you might finally after a long time get the point.
Zain, nothing is perfect. It's only an illusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
The DNA accumulates and losses information randomly (mutation) and these information are passed on during reproduction (sexual and asexual). Whichever organisms happen to have the better genetic information are generally favored to live and reproduce within their environment (natural selection). Hence those that have the inferior and wonky codes tend to die and disappear (natural selection as well). Hence creating the illusion that reproduction is perfect.
Oh and here's how an eye can evolve:
The human eye is not irreducibly complex
My religion is based on Creationism, Evolution is not Creationism, so therefore it's always going to "threaten", but yes, I will always study on this, it's very intresting to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
He was talking about the changes in people's lives, and they're true.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfTheIsles
Mutations? No, simple changes due to casted out genes. I can not accept the Evolution saying that something changes for no reason. I do, however, will accept Natural Selection. What changes have evolution made? Does it make someone a better person?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
I understand that as far as that goes, it's long term. Computer Programs, in the human body? I'm probably missing something, can you help me out a little to understand this?Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
What was ignored?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
He was being sarcastic!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Zain, this is very patronising, but you are very young. It's good to see that you are thinking about things. No one has all the answers, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask the questions.
The world is full of omnivores and carnivores. Sure, the dinosaurs were too, but there is no evidence man killed them.
Wooly Mammoths and sabre toothed tigres on the other hand had intimate knowledge of man - we killed lots of one and were sometimes the dinner of the other. There are human bones with scars from sabre tooth tigers for example.
The earth covered with water. Where did it all come from? Where did it all go? And in 40 days remember!
A boat with the capacity for all that food??!?
Fossils are not dated by the depth that they are buried. The exact method depends, but the radioactive decay or carbon or the Argon / Potassium ratio is usually used. Fossils can be on the surface or miles underground. These values are not altered by much except time.
Crocodiles are not dinosaurs. They lived at the same time, but they are not the same. Different bone structure for example.
~:smoking:
Using the word "perfect" got me into a lot of trouble. :oops: Either way, It's still very well "planned".Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Thank you. I'm #2 in my high school class. :proud:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
But, there's no evidence disproven my theory either. Has the comet thing been proven?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20-uk
Cool. Atleast that's concrete evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20-uk
I think there was a layer of water covering the Earth, which protected the people from the Sun's damaging ultraviolet and all that, which explains their long life. It evaporated it and God either got rid of it or sent it somewhere. 40 days, yup, it says in the bible that the water fell like a giant sheet over the Earth, destroying everything, but God has his hand on the boat and protected it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20-uk
It was large! Yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20-uk
Oh, alright. I thought I was up to something. Dang!Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20-uk
But they are simliar, more similar then a mammal.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20-uk
:shakehands:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20-uk
it works, but it is a mess.
The human genome is riddled with viruses, most of which have ceased to function a long time ago. There are large stretches that just repeat the same letters. Again, why planned? There's been a long time to develop complexity. The ones that didn't work died.
That cells divide is amazing. The sheer number of processes involved is enormous. But that alone is NOT reason to mean it requires supervision.
Natural selection IS evolution!
I'm sorry that your obvious thirst for knowledge has been shackled by your religion. It is a terrible shame when thologians place blinkers on people. As an agnostic I am able to accept that perhaps god did seed the planet with life. Perhaps it was aliens. Perhaps meteors. Perhaps it was on kaolin rock near saline seas. Perhaps one day we'll know for sure (such as digging up the Earth's serial number).
concerning the resurrection of christ, he was not talking about affect on people's lives, else he'd have said that. He was again trying to place a myth on the same footing as historical fact.
~:smoking:
It's not even that. In the clock analogy, modern humans (Homo Sapiens) have existed for about two seconds. Early cave paintings date to the equivalent of 0.6 seconds ago. In short, we really haven't been around that long.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
I know Crossroad personally, and he told me that's what he was talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
If Natural Selection is Evolution, and it's the Natural Selection I believe, then I guess Evolution is believable. Of course, the dating of the Earth also gets in the way of the whole thing. Also, the amount of change within the animals messes up that too. Natural Selection doesn't say there's going to be a huge change, but Evolution does.
Zain, merely that there are marks on human bones that match sabre tooth tigre's teeth is not conclusive. Nothing is. Perhaps God put them there. Perhaps aliens did. Perhaps the mammoth chewed the human's leg off.
Commet theory: sort of. There's a lot of iridium in a layer of dust that is extremely unusual unless a comet has hit. And I believe that there is evidence of a meteor strike in Canada (I think). After that it's conjecture.
But there have been many extinctions as shown in the fossil record. True, the sudden end of the dinosaurs is the most popular, but one of the earlier ones wiped out 90% of life on the planet.
Concerning Noah, I admit that once God enters the equation why not grab the water and then dump it. I'd say that it seems a great hastle when he could just kill the troublemakers. Oh, and a very similar story appears in other religious texts that predate the Bible.
What animals look like is their phenotype
Animals genetic code is their genotype
Rabbits and hairs look alike, but are not genetically similar (so, same phenotype, different genotype)
A poodle and a rottweiler may look very different, but have very similar genes.
Crocodiles and some dinosaurs look alike. Dinosaurs varied a lot. Some even had wings, and it is thought are the ancestors of modern birds.
~:smoking:
I believe the crater that forms the Gulf of Mexico has been dated to be approximately 65 million years old, which corresponds with the decline of the dinosaurs and was caused by a meteor impact. That doesn't definitively prove it, but is definitely evidence in favour of being at least a partial cause.Quote:
But, there's no evidence disproven my theory either. Has the comet thing been proven?
Whoops! My bad!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
As you say, natural selection is small changes in a direction based on the environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
And a small change in one direction over a long timeframe leads to a large change.
Some small mutations can have a massive effect on an organism. For example, if a STOP codon is removed, the DNA is read past a certain point, which can lead to many new protiens being created. Depending on what they are the result can be startling e.g. Albinos.
Or nothing may be seen on looking. Lots of mutations to the "junk" DNA can do nothing (although the term "junk" is being debated as it might be that we just don't know the function yet). Or there may be 5 copies of a gene and the chance stops one from working, so the other 4 just plough on.
Anyway, it's bloody late, and I'm going to have to turn in. c ya later :shakehands:
~:smoking:
But, it's more conclusive then simply saying it. As far as the sabertooths and mammoths go.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Concerning the flood and it's multiple appearances. That just increases the possibility of it being true, does it not? I'm guessing he wanted to keep it all natural, as far as killing goes.
It's possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfTheIsles
I enjoyed talking with you, I hope you will think about what I have said, about Creationism and Christianity, as you know I will always think about the facts of science and Evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Just a statement not having any direct link to recent discussion:
Evolution goes hand-in-hand with the Big Bang theory. This is because the explosion caused changes and started life and all that. If the Big Bang Theory was real, the number 1 unanswered question for that would be, where did the matter of the Big Bang come from? That's the hugest problem with that stupid theory. The only answer to that is God, who created all things in six days, and rested on the seventh, as an example for we humans to do the same. Just think about it, it doesn't matter if you believe in the seven day creation, only ponder the question. Where did the matter come from? Remember that God loves you, and wants you to accept him so you can be with him for all eternity in Heaven.
The most common question asked about the validity of Noah's ark is, "How could millions of different animals fit on one small boat?"Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
First, there were not millions of animals. Not every "kind" of animal was needed to be on board. According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board. Furthermore, every minor variation of animal (species) was not present. Wolves, foxes, coyote, and dogs could have come from an original dog kind.
Making the generous assumption that the average animal size is as large as a sheep, and between 2 and 7 of each kind of animal were taken, 16,000 sheep-size animals, at the most, would have been on board. This number could have been as low as 2000 if the Biblical "kind" is equivalent to the family level of modern animal classification. These numbers include every known living and extinct type of mammal, bird, amphibian, and reptile.
This was no small boat. Noah and his family had over 100 years to construct a vessel longer that a football field and three stories high. The total space available was equivalent to 522 railroad stock cars. A stock car holds 240 sheep so the ark could have held 125,000 animals.
At most, only 40% of the total space was needed for all of the animals! The remainder would be used for food and storage.
The account of Noah's flood is similar to many other Biblical stories. They make perfect sense if you assume they mean exactly what they say and take time to study them carefully.
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=28[
Actually I was agreeing that God changes people, and those miricles are hard to dispute.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Evolution and the Big Bang theory are separate ideas. One is to explain how life became so diverse, the other how the universe came into being. That matter and life exist is certain. Evolution only tries to explain what happened to life once it came into existence. Whether we can explain where the matter came from is irrelevant to (biological) evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
Also, it is a mistake to say that just because we're not sure where matter came from then it must have come from a god of some sort.
P.S. I've been wondering, why would an omnipotent god have to take a day off to rest? Wouldn't creating a universe be a fairly easy task to an all-powerful being, hardly worthy of an entire day's rest?
:embarassed: :embarassed: I will have to give you that round. I have to admit, I'm not the best speller. :dizzy2: :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
The caps locked micro-evolution post was sarcasm. Go back and read post 181 very carefully. I was making fun of those who miss the point of some posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
I agree that this line of reasoning is week. But have you honestly browsed web sites like http://www.icr.org/? Really, all thread-debating-becasue-its-a-blast-to-spout-our-opinions aside, have you looked at what Creation Science has uncovered that the main stream media is avoiding? Really? Give me an honest answer. Have you tried to take what they are saying and debunk it? I'm not talking about "The Bible is true because it says so" kind of statements, I'm talking about the actual science that is being published, the discoveries that fly in the face of evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
I hate repeating myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
That is on post #222 my friend.
Science is about drawing conclusions from existing data. The existing data says, something can not come from nothing. So, concerning the quesiton of matter, the only logical answer is God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
Why not take six seconds to create everything? I think the six day work, one day rest, was an example of how we should live. Work-aholics usually live unhealthy lives. How awesome would that be if God was thinking of us when he decided to work six and rest one?:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
Hardly - absence of a definite theory at the present time is no reason to suppose that the only possible answer is something supernatural. The Greeks had no idea what could naturally cause lightning, so they assumed that it had to be supernatural (the weapons of Zeus). Our current knowledge about lightning shows how unwise it is to assume that where no current theory exists, the only possible answer is supernatural.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Fair enough. My question was to do with the word 'rest'. To me 'rest' implies that creating the universe was tiring. I suppose that there could be other meanings to the word rest that wouldn't imply that it was tiring.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Well, it's getting late over here and I'm going to bed. Goodnight all.
Let me educate you on how the Bible came about.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: stop crossroad :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: it hurts too much:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board.
Wow , insects can survive a year long flood , thats clever :no: nearly as clever as only one type of dog , I thought you were arguing against evolution ?
I see that some hillbilly evolutionist cannot understand information as a whole
That has to be a classic , a religeous nut comparing people to inbred backwoods people .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: damn |I could have sworn that your average hillbilly would be a bit of a bible thumper with little knowledge of science .
good night Marcellus
All you do is ridicule Tribesman. Do something constructive and find some kind of evidence that backs up your beliefs! If not, get out of here!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Gah!!! Gah!!! Gah!!! Please pay attention!!!!!!!!!!!:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Do you not know what the word species means? Ok, maybe I should have said "a canine will always be a canine" when I was talking about species never changing into other species. I also said, I believed in micro-evolution. Dog breeders do it all the time. They create new breeds of canine, but they will always be canines. :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: Maybe beating my head against this wall has caused me to be the only one hearing my voice :inquisitive: Could it be that :wall: is the reason you can not hear me?
So I'm a religeous nut? Because I see scientific evidence that points to a young earth, ask the very important question about the foundation of the Big Bang that no one else is asking? Because I am a Christian? BTW, I am a lot of things, but religeous I am not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
As for hillbilly evolutionist - the title suits anyone who bastardizes another's point by pulling out unintended shite from a post.
Whoa.
I think we need to bring in a snow-maker to cool things down a bit.
P.S:Yes Tribesman if you are going to poke fun, please use satire ~;p.Quote:
All you do is ridicule Tribesman. Do something constructive and find some kind of evidence that backs up your beliefs! If not, get out of here!
P.P.S: Banging your head against a wall may cause brain-damage, so I'd advise against such a measure.
All you do is ridicule Tribesman. Do something constructive and find some kind of evidence that backs up your beliefs! If not, get out of here!
Zain , perhaps you should have listened to your father , debate is evil:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
As for hillbilly evolutionist - the title suits anyone who bastardizes another's point by pulling out unintended shite from a post.
Unintended shite , now that is interesting , lets talk excrement , well you have been throughout the topic , but hey its your topic .
Now could you remind me , as I don't know this bible book thing , how many humans were on board ?
Now taking into consideration that these people were of course superhuman and really dedicated to their job so could perhaps do the work of 10 men or even 100 . How many extra hours would a day have to contain to allow them to remove the excrement from , say for example , just 10% of the number of animals you suggest were on board ? then how many really extra special hours would have to be added to a day to allow them to also feed and water just 10% of the animals ?
Talking of food could you explain how animals that only eat fresh vegitation were catered for , was there a rather large greenhouse up on deck ?the bible doesn't mention it , perhaps it was edited out:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Now then young boy , you are saying only one type of canine , and all of the other types have developed from the one type on board :2thumbsup: Congratulations you have just speeded up evolution havn't you , by a really fantastic rate :no: Do you have any explanation as to how these developingdogs manged to mutate and sprea around the world so quickly ? remember an animal with 4 legs and paws is an unclean animal so there would be a very very very limited starting stock.
Hmmmmmm.....I see you avoid the insects , is that because you are talking rubbish ?
Tell you what , just to generous have an easy question , can you explain the rainbow ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
OK. Amphibians can't survive a year without any land. They require land as they are semi terrestrial. Insects can't survive either. Housefly: 2 weeks. mayfly: 1 day.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
So, cyotes, foxes, wolves all came from the same animal. How? I'd say they evolved.
The assumptions that you make in that all animals can be placed in boxes for a year is risable. Many species need domains which are miles in size. They'll go mad (literally) in a box.
100 years to construct a boat. Of wood. The bottom wood not at all affected by the weight, nor rot. LOL
And then: food. Herbivores eat can eat masses of food. Carnivores eat meat - and generally fresh meat as well. fresh meat that lasts for a year... :inquisitive:
They make perfect sense if you set out to find them correct. They are obviously fables if one just thinks logically about the details.
Where does micro-evolution end and macro evolution begin? Surely it is all a question of the length of time that it is measured over.
~:smoking:
Some quick questions that appears by simply looking at some of those sites (namely icr).
How did aquatious annimals die in the flood?
Why did God create degenerating humans?
Why isn't the fact that Mary Schweitzer had to defossilize the bone marrow to find out that it wsa way better preserved than what was previously suspected? (yeah minor stuff here)
Why does God care specifically for humans when there are more than 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe, many with more than 100 billion stars each. According to Psalm 147:4, God calls them all by name. No; omnipresence means that all of God is present at every place, at the same time.
This means that no matter how large the universe, and how many beings reside within His kingdom, each of us can have His full and undivided attention in our own hearts. ? As this specififfic care is the foundation of the Monotheism on earth.
Why creationists often makes the same thing that they accuse evolutionists of, namely having a pre-determinated oppinion?
From the new article section.
Something changes because of 'mistakes' in reproducing DNA, if the mistake leads to a 'better' individual the mistake will be passed on to the children of that individual and so on. This is of course, horribly simplified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
Then how does that not lead to evolution ? The best adapted survive and pass their DNA on to their children, how is this not evolution ?Quote:
I do, however, will accept Natural Selection.
It made us humans for a start :2thumbsup:Quote:
What changes have evolution made? Does it make someone a better person?
This is no argument for Creationism however, Budhims and Hinduism and pretty much all major religions have made people better persons, they have different views on creation and can't be all correct. So they might as well all have it wrong. There's no connection between something being true and having a positive effect on people. Fairy tales are told to teach children valuable lessons. Santa Claus is made up so children would behave better. Neither of those are true.
No, on a computer. I'll try to explain briefly:Quote:
I understand that as far as that goes, it's long term. Computer Programs, in the human body? I'm probably missing something, can you help me out a little to understand this?
Lets say you have a problem you want to solve which involves you finding the minimum of a certain mathematical function. This is what is commonly known as an optimization problem. Sometimes functions are too complex to find the minimum analytically or by another 'standard' technique. Genetic algoritmes use 'genomes', mostly binary strings of ones and zero representing numbers corresponding to the variables of the function. You start of with a large set of those genomes, you evaluate them (this corresponds to a thing living in the world) and you keep the best x% (only the most adapted breed), you then use the same methods as nature to make new genomes: cross-over and mutation, simply put, cross over is an exchange of data between two individuals (so parts of the binary string get transferred from one to the other) and mutation (a 1 can change into a 0, with a small chance). You make new genomes (normally the same amount as the original amount of parent genomes, so twice as much as there were parents used). You repeat this process a few times (sometimes quite a lot of times actually) and in the end, if your parameters (population size, cross over rate, mutation rate, etc) are well chosen you will find a 'good' solution to your problem, even if you start of with an initially randomly generated population.
This shows that the basic mechanism of evolution can be used to obtain an 'optimum' (you don't know if it's absolute), if you consider the function to be a 'niche' environment it shows that a population over generations can relatively quickly adapt to the environment. Now these algoritmes are far simpler than the way DNA works, since DNA can change size, has duplicate copies of genes (possibly), has genes ordened in a certain way etc. So just by using the inherent properties of the reproduction process life has the possibillity of quickly adapting to pretty much any given environment.
Also if you start out with a certain, uniform population, split it in two and evaluate two, sufficiently different problems (two different niches in the environment) you should get two populations of pretty different individuals since they are each aimed at their own problem. The same thing has happened in nature, each creature is essentially a solution to the problem of reproduction: using minimum energy to produce as much offspring as possible. This problem is dependant on the environment, if there is no food, getting energy from the sun is a good idea, if there are plants, eating them might be more efficient, etc...
No, they doth disagree with creationism, but they don't go hand in hand. There is afaik far more uncertainty about the Big Bang theory than there is about evolution. Although recent measurement of 'background radiation' seems like an indication that the Big Bang theory might be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
Evolution theory can be backed by fossil records, rudimentary organs, DNA findings, and theoretical models of evolution. These say nothing about the Big bang.
Both theories are only related to a Creationist, since they are both different theories that contradict their theory.