I just realized some of the choices i posted do not make sense

Evolution is definately true .. there's no way you can look at the facts and dispute it, so what you're basically asking is "What are your religious beliefs about evolution?"

I personally feel that there is a God and he created the universe and 'man', and he created evolution but didn't/doesn't controll it.

Those are just my thoughts.

Boy have you opened a can of worms...

If there is a saving feature to this topic it will be that it is not in the religion forums.

Personally, I don't believe God exists except in our minds. If Gods exists then what happened the the literally thousands of gods and goddesses throughout history that we don't even know the names of anymore because they were lost in the antiquity of time. They were no less real to the people of that time than the gods we know and worship now.

I believe that evolution is what has happened. That is what evidence points the way towards.

Creationism has no merits in my book. It is another cockmamie idea fostered on the believing to seperate them from their money. If you can not get their money then take their time. Funny isn't it. If you believe then all that is required is faith. In otherwords there is no proof so don't ask.

Actually there are alot of facts that support evolution BUT you can dispute it. There is no real HARD evidence that proves evolution with out a doubt.
Example: in evolution, animals are supposed to change from one thing to another... also called adaption. We have never wittnessed a bird change into a lizard or vice versa. Just small adaptations in crabs that look like they have faces on them, ect.

Later
T

We have never wittnessed a bird change into a lizard or vice versa.

Actually evolution does not happen on that time scale. You need to think in longer terms. There are still gaps in our knowledge of what goes where and examples of each step. We are looking for links that are literal 1000's and 100'000's of years old and longer. It is a wonder that there is anything to find after that amount of time. Missing steps leave doubts.

At some point there were doubts on almost everything and not just evolution. Science has changed a lot of that. I am sure you no longer doubt that matter can have three physical states. You can research the science that proves such. Prehaps one day we find all the links in the chain that connect man to one celled critters that started life.

am sure you no longer doubt that matter can have three physical states.


Actually four..... Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma


I think *scratches head*, :eek:
T:D

no you are right
http://scsc.essortment.com/theplasmastate_rfbb.htm

and especially look here
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/14/11/8

You're right, forgot about the plasma. Does illustrate the point though.

Liquid crystal can be consider as another state of matter. Although not all matters can be in this state, but it is a state of matter no less. :)

Evolution is extant, no matter what any of us might believe--for, or against.

http://www.sciforums.com/f30/s/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8602

When we modify corn (GM Corn) or pig or mice - do you think that will be considered evolution?

If a level 6 intelligence (monkey at Level 0, we at Level I) modified life forms on this planet few million years ago for the heck of it, would that be considered evolution?

Okay. Homo Sapiens (us) evolved from Homo Erectuses, right? Homo Erectuses roamed the earth approximately 2 million years ago. Their brains consisted of about 50 billion neurons. Our brains have 100 billion neurons.

2 million years ago. Assume they reproduced every ten years. Divide 2 million by 10. Then you get 200,000. So that's 200,000 chances for evolution to make a Homo Sapien out of a Homo Erectus out of completely random mutations. For this to have happened, each new offspring would have to have 250,000 more neurons than its parents for approximately 2 million years straight. Either that, or some giant leap in evolution.

But don't get me wrong. I still believe in evolution. This simply points out that there is still very much we don't know.

" If Gods exists then what happened the the literally thousands of gods and goddesses throughout history that we don't even know the names of anymore because they were lost in the antiquity of time. They were no less real to the people of that time than the gods we know and worship now. " - I like that.

Originally posted by Awaranowski
2 million years ago. Assume they reproduced every ten years. Divide 2 million by 10. Then you get 200,000. So that's 200,000 chances for evolution to make a Homo Sapien out of a Homo Erectus out of completely random mutations. For this to have happened, each new offspring would have to have 250,000 more neurons than its parents for approximately 2 million years straight. Either that, or some giant leap in evolution.


You are thinking linearly...genetic changes do not occur by adding one eye here, one finger there....it occurs at the fundamental DNA coding level. Suppose there are only five genes that needed to be turned that results in the human brain expression, it is probable that that is what happened in a specific configuration which resulted the outcome.

The question comes to mind is how and why certain changes occur. That is what is the pre-basis that happens? I think, we are still tinkering with that understanding....

For example, you can customize a yahoo web page (or MSN). The underlying program is already built in. A non-programmer can drag and drop a customized version in no time based on your preferences. Similarly the DNA may have all the code necessary but requires some unknown stimulus to express itself to a human.

tristan,

Actually there are alot of facts that support evolution BUT you can dispute it. There is no real HARD evidence that proves evolution with out a doubt.This depends on what you mean by evolution.

Imagine you are in a room and there is a box in the corner. You leave the room and return after a short time. The box is now in a different corner. You know as FACT that the box has been moved somehow. What you don’t know is how or what moved it. We could say that someone came in and moved it and that would be THEORY, and offers a potentially believable explanation for an event we KNOW has occurred.

We KNOW evolution has occurred, this is FACT, what is not fully clear is HOW evolution has occurred, and that is the THEORY part, i.e. the processes of evolution. Evolution is both FACT and THEORY, and note that “theory” does not mean some form of inferior fact, but in this case a process or set of processes.

The thread suggests that evolution might not be true. There is no doubt that evolution has occurred, but we are still searching for some of the “how” parts.

Cris

In the same way, Evolution Theory's detractors know that they were conceived and then born into this world, but to a person they cannot describe nor, of their own intellectual expenditure, produce certain evidence of the exact mechanisms that made themselves possible.

Therefore, we are to believe they do not actually exist.

"You are thinking linearly...genetic changes do not occur by adding one eye here, one finger there....it occurs at the fundamental DNA coding level. Suppose there are only five genes that needed to be turned that results in the human brain expression, it is probable that that is what happened in a specific configuration which resulted the outcome.

The question comes to mind is how and why certain changes occur. That is what is the pre-basis that happens? I think, we are still tinkering with that understanding.... "

Okay. Suppose there are only 5 genes that need to be changed. Even so, that's how many nucleotides that have to be changed for the better by pure chance? A lot.

Originally posted by Awaranowski
Okay. Suppose there are only 5 genes that need to be changed. Even so, that's how many nucleotides that have to be changed for the better by pure chance? A lot.


Not necessarily. First of all, major changes in body plan are possible through a single mutation. For example, in one of the HOX genes.

Secondly, even a single nucleotide mutation can dramatically change the efficacy/reaction profile of the various proteins in which the gene participates. Most genes are made up of codons, which can be shared by multiple genes and definitely participate in manufacture of multiple proteins. There are many (at least a couple orders of magnitude) more proteins than there are genes. So even a single nucleotide mutation may send large effects cascading through.

It's also worth noting that mutations can destabilize surrounding genetic material and cause further accelerated mutation in subsequent generations, until the DNA stabilizes again. This has been demonstrated experimentally with mice. A strong argument for the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution.

Yeah. I've read something like that in Time magazine. Always learning :)

Here is another analogy that may not be too scientific but shows the point.

If our body encounters a new virus, unless the virus itself is adaptive (like HIV), our body knows how to deal with it and sends soldiers to kill those viruses. You consciously do not know what the virus composition is and how to create the antibody. It happens automatically with a preprogrammed adaptive direction. Neither God nor you direct such attack or create the antibody consciously. Similarly, the life forms over millions of years of DNA advancement has built is mutation techniques (not random) that deals with those mutations based on external stimuli. That is how life forms have changed and adapted to the environment.

Finding that mechanism is difficult but research is underway. Once we can simulate even a lower life form in a super computer, we may find, how it evolves. Then the theory can become facts.

If there is no God, what started evolution?.... God The Bible is just stories and is a book, so when we read it, our imagination changes everything. It doesn't mean those stories happened exactly that way, they are just written that way to help us understand.

Originally posted by Porsche
If there is no God, what started evolution?....


Any of an infinite number of possibilities. What makes you think God is the only (or even the more) plausible explanation?

Anyway, "what started" is somewhat of a misguided way to ask the question. Evolution is not an engine you start. It's a process of change, and everything in nature undergoes change. Really, in fact, the entire universe evolves. You might as well be asking, what started the universe.


God The Bible is just stories and is a book, so when we read it, our imagination changes everything.


That's true of any book, not just the Bible.


It doesn't mean those stories happened exactly that way, they are just written that way to help us understand.


It doesn't mean those stories happened at all, or in any way similar to the way they are actually conveyed. Bible is a book of myths, legends and fables. It's by far not the only such creation of human mind in history; nor is it the first, certainly -- or the last.

There is no valid reason to believe that evolution is the explanation for the development of life on this planet. The archaeologists are always searching for the missing link that will connect us with a later date in history, without success. Recently they found the sloped skull of an ape and tried to pawn that off as proof of their theory. Couldn't stand the light of day, though. The fact is, if there was such a connection with the past they would have found at least a fossil by now. That means that the evolutionists are operating on the same belief system as the religionists, only in a different category. So one shouldn't decry the other.

If animate life evolved from some primordial mix of ingredients then it would take so long for a single species to develop that the first one would dominate the planet before any other complex life form in it's category could accrue to develop a population. Therefore everything after the first developed lifeform would forever remain as part of the food chain for the first developed species. There is abundant example of this species domination in limited systems. The rabbits and mice in Australia. The killer bees and fire ants in South America and up into the middle of the U.S. The pine beetles in Western North America. And a bunch of others around the world that include plants and birds and even germs.

That gives rise to the idea that there is room for another theory, one that says someone had to gather specimens of all the different kinds of life forms, each from their individual planet, and bring them all here and arrange them in an ecological system that would work.

I hate to be the bearer of truth, but...


There is no valid reason to believe that evolution is the explanation for the development of life on this planet.

Except for all the evidence supporting the theory...


The archaeologists are always searching for the missing link that will connect us with a later date in history, without success.

Actually fossils representing several sages of human evolution have been found.


Recently they found the sloped skull of an ape and tried to pawn that off as proof of their theory. Couldn't stand the light of day, though.

More information please?


The fact is, if there was such a connection with the past they would have found at least a fossil by now.

1) Such fossils have been found.

2) This is an awfully large planet. Archaeologists have barely scratched the surface of it. Only this year an entire city was discovered right beside a country of one billion people (referring to the sunken city off the coast of India). Until early this year, nobody knew it was there. To say that all things which might be discovered must have been discovered by now, and no future discoveries are likely, is pure idiocy.


That means that the evolutionists are operating on the same belief system as the religionists, only in a different category. So one shouldn't decry the other.

See all of the above points. Evolution has supporting evidence. Creationism does not.


If animate life evolved from some primordial mix of ingredients then it would take so long for a single species to develop that the first one would dominate the planet before any other complex life form in it's category could accrue to develop a population.

And you are basing your estimates of the times involved on...?


Therefore everything after the first developed lifeform would forever remain as part of the food chain for the first developed species.

Humanity. Top of the food chain.

Adam, you've done brilliantly

(hits himself because he missed the chance)

The archaeologists are always searching for the missing link that will connect us with a later date in history, without success.

allow only me to add that human species is in no way the only specie on our planet and that the evolution of certain species of disonaurs has been traced quite well

That is exactly my point. There is plenty of evidence for dinosaurs to prove that they were here during that geologic period but there is none for our type of human. If we had been here when life formed out of the primordial mass then we would have been eating dino barbeque and so we would have to have left some of our bones amongst theirs. But there aren't any and there is no evidence of us for tens of million of year after them, either.

When you regard the evidence of human life on this planet you find that we have proof of being here for only a short period of time as compared to the actual time that we have proof that life of some kind existed here. That means that what we have to study and base a larger theory on is actually a subset of the larger theory of evolution and thus doesn't prove evolution but merely that natural selection works within the framework of the subset.

It is when you use the limited evidence of the subset to state unequivocally that the larger theory of evolution also must be true is where you leave reality and express faith. That is the similarity to operating on a belief system. If you had said that you believe in natural selection because you have scientific evidence of it, then of course no one could dispute that.

Originally posted by John MacNeil
It is when you use the limited evidence of the subset to state unequivocally that the larger theory of evolution also must be true is where you leave reality and express faith. That is the similarity to operating on a belief system. If you had said that you believe in natural selection because you have scientific evidence of it, then of course no one could dispute that.

Uhhhhh... Once more without all the double talk...? :confused:

There is plenty of evidence for dinosaurs to prove that they were here during that geologic period but there is none for our type of human. If we had been here when life formed out of the primordial mass then we would have been eating dino barbeque and so we would have to have left some of our bones amongst theirs. But there aren't any and there is no evidence of us for tens of million of year after them, either.

Am i understanding you correctly? You believe that dinosaurs were here when life began? You're misinformed. Our planet has been around for about 4.5 billion years. Life has been around for about 4 billion years. Dinosaurs only came about 250 *million* years ago. They were not present when life formed. All there was was that one original life form at first. Take a look at this website, it shows the history of the earth, to scale.

http://www.aqd.nps.gov/grd/usgsnps/gtime/gtime2.html

but you don't understand that theory of EVOLUTION is only about EVOLUTION not how life began:rolleyes:

besides we have a lots of fossils of fishes and creatures in between, so it's pretty clear

When I said the dinosaurs were here, I was referring to them being here in the time frame from the period of their extinction and back to the period when they first formed. I didn't mean they were as old as the planet. When I was referring to humans, I meant that for us to be here now because of the process of evolution, then we also would have to have been around when the dinosaurs were around because there wasn't enough time for us to evolve as a species in the time since the dinosaurs went extinct and right now.

I said some more about this in Mr. G's thread in the Science & Society section.

there wasn't enough time for us to evolve as a species in the time since the dinosaurs went extinct and right now.

what exactly makes you think like that?
facts, data, assumptions, belief?

id just like to point out that we didn't evolve from homo erectus.......

plus that number of neurons thing about homo erectus is a guess at how many neurons would fit inside homo erectus's brain cavity in the skull..

homo eructos was one of the leafs in the human evolution tree........some far relatance we've got maybe

there wasn't enough time for us to evolve as a species in the time since the dinosaurs went extinct and right now.

That was 65 million years. In that time, mammals evolved from little rat-like creatures, into mammoths, sloths, saber toothed tigers, horses, deer, monkeys, bats, hippos, you get the picture. And all that didnt take the whole time. You seem to be misinformed about how long evolution takes. It takes a long time, but 65 million years is plenty of time for a species to develop. In fact, humans are thought to be one of the fastest species in terms of evolution.

Note: No offense meant here, of course. I'm just trying to give you more accurate information so you understand the theory better. :cool:

Though I do believe in a creator being of some sort, evolution is proven in my eyes. How else could you explain the monstrosity that is the chiwawa. That used to be a wolf but now it looks like a rat.

Natural selective breeding, pure and simple. But I thing whatever creator being exists most likely started the process and just let it go, perhaps with a few occasional tweaks.

"id just like to point out that we didn't evolve from homo erectus....... "

Ok im stupid, I remember hearing that one of the homo-creatures (no pun intended) were a branch off that went extinct. I thought it was the homo erectus, but maybe im wrong.

In any case IT DOESN'T MATTER. So just disregard me.

If Gods exists then what happened the the literally thousands of gods and goddesses ...Funny isn't it. If you believe then all that is required is faith. In otherwords there is no proof so don't ask. [/B][/QUOTE]



i amy be crazy..but all those 'gods' and 'goddessses' were spirits and/or angles..think about, those were some of the most busy times for god..so helpers were instated..if not then there power hungry angles from the endless war between heaven and hell..just a thought...and faith is believeing with out proof..look around you..did you just pop out of thin air? and we can start a whole new line of arguments with this...

i'd like to point out that dinosaurs did exist..see it this way.. 7 days to god is like..say thousand - billion or so years..so if you look at it that way.. the sciencific and the religion run into together and even make a bit of sense..thats all i have to say..

Actually there is no proof that the difference we see in the fossils are due to morphological mutations.

In fact science has still failed to demonstrate that morphological mutations can actually change one appendage into something different, I.E fin to limb or even limb to flipper. We can't consider the mis-placement of a wing on a fruitfly as a morphological mutation because the wing was made up of already existing genes and no new genes were required to produce it.
We can't consider some sort of virus adaption as a morphological mutation because that would be considered as a chemical mutation and does not deal with the reshaping of a body part.

For the most part the Theory of Evolution is based upon circular reasoning. The fossils show evolution happened...we know evolution is true becuse of the fossils.

When one studies the fine details of evolution one quickly realizes that it is impossible.

Welcome to sciforums, Sixdays.

Human beings were never a very common organism until the agricultural revoultion.

Back before Lucy there likly was never more than a half-million of any given hominid species. We also lived in dry places. Fossils usually need sediment to form.

Thats why hominid fossils are so rare..

ok i know about the revolutions in that time..but i've no clue to the whloe fossil bit so i will take your words on it..

Fossils usually need sediment to form.

<font color=red>The flood of Noah would create the perfect environment for fossil formation. </font>

I came late to this thread, but there is not much I can say about the subject and, of course, there is not much scientific basis or references I could give. I think evolution happens very, very slowly, and I don´t think it is due to a response for adapting to the environment and survival. I think there are other factors involved, as apparently birds evolved from dinosaurs in some hundred million years, but other species (as scorpions and other insects) did not evolve much.

The evolution of the human species <b>was too fast as to have "natural" causes.</b> I think somebody went tampering with our ancestor's DNA to produce our Homo Sapiens. Take the case of Cromagnon and Nanderthal men: both were contemporary, but Cromagnon were much more advanced than the brutish Neanderthal, and the change (if it was a natural change) was too fast --not more than 20 or 30.000 years.

There is still a lot we have to learn about evolution.

"I think there are other factors involved, as apparently birds evolved from dinosaurs in some hundred million years, but other species (as scorpions and other insects) did not evolve much."

You are entirely correct in saying that evolution doesn't happen in reponse to a "need" to adapt. However, the above quote has a few misconceptions. Evolution has no bias; humans are just as evolved as scorpions. Scorpions did evolve into many different species, however, the original scoripion was suited to its environment mostly as much as it is to todays environment. Therefore, that species survived. Other branch offs of scorpions formed as you can see with the different species of scorpion, and other species not considered scorpions that had a scorpion as its ancestor.

Something more intelligent is not "more evolved" than anything else. Everything on this planet most likely evolved from one single bacterium. If by more evolved you mean a bigger change from the original, then that would be true. But many things that "evolved more" died because the "new" DNA code was not suited to the environment or really for any reason, even a freak accident can kill someone ans therefore stop their DNA pattern from being passed on.

"The evolution of the human species was too fast as to have "natural" causes. I think somebody went tampering with our ancestor's DNA to produce our Homo Sapiens. "

You're going to have a tough time convincing anyone of that. Aliens? Why bother? It just so happens that, if you do the math, you will find that the "rate of evolution" needs not be quick at all to produce things such as humans and any other creature under the sun.

Originally posted by Edufer
The evolution of the human species <b>was too fast as to have "natural" causes.</b> I think somebody went tampering with our ancestor's DNA to produce our Homo Sapiens.

This only raises the question, well how did the aliens achieve intelligence then? Assuming for a moment this did happen then it was by an intelligent extraterrestial who evolved somewhere else. This answer only pushes the question one stage further back.

Take the case of Cromagnon and Nanderthal men: both were contemporary, but Cromagnon were much more advanced than the brutish Neanderthal, and the change (if it was a natural change) was too fast --not more than 20 or 30.000 years.

There is still a lot we have to learn about evolution.

Last I heard Neandarthals where contemporaneous of Homo Agustus. Homo Sapiens evolved from Agustus and we out competed the Neandarthals by virtue of a greater ability to adapt the environment.

BTW, Neandarthals where not 'brutish'. This is a common misconception pushed by many authors over the years. If you look at the common image of Neandarthal they show a hunched, hairy figure lumbering along with claw like hands. The first Neandarthal skeleton, on which the image is based, was an elderly person with advanced arthritis. Modern depictions show Neandarthal as perfectly upright, slightly hairier with a larger brain pan and nose. They where superbly adapted to the environment they lived.

<b>Frencheneesz:</b> <i>”Scorpions did evolve into many different species, however, the original scorpion was suited to its environment mostly as much as it is to today’s environment. Therefore, that species survived. Other branch offs of scorpions formed as you can see with the different species of scorpion, and other species not considered scorpions that had a scorpion as its ancestor.”</I>
That’s right. But I also wonder why we find scorpions are found in totally different environments as the Sahara desert, the Amazon jungle and prairies and sabanas.<I>”Something more intelligent is not "more evolved" than anything else. Everything on this planet most likely evolved from one single bacterium.</i>As evolution goes from the simplest to the more complex, I would say everything started not with a bacteria, or even a virus, but from a aminoacid molecule or a protein in the “primordial soup”. However, I still think that a “more intelligent” form of life is “more evolved” than a bacteria or a cockroach. More complex forms of life evolve to perfection, or “bettering” (as you see I agree that evolution exists), but there is a price to pay there. Organically, more complex forms are weaker (the human species is an example, we are not as resistant to radioactivity as scorpions and cockroaches) or to some chemicals, although the human species is not harmed by chemicals that rapidly kill insects (DDT is an example).
<b>thed:</b> <I>”This only raises the question, well how did the aliens achieve intelligence then? Assuming for a moment this did happen then it was by an intelligent extraterrestrial who evolved somewhere else. This answer only pushes the question one stage further back.”</I>Of course, but it not detract the question that there could have been “gene tampering” by somebody in ancient times. Thed: <I>”Last I heard Neanderthals where contemporaneous of Homo Augustus. Homo Sapiens evolved from Augustus and we out competed the Neanderthals by virtue of a greater ability to adapt the environment.” . . . “Modern depictions show Neanderthal as perfectly upright, slightly hairier with a larger brain pan and nose. They where superbly adapted to the environment they lived.”. </i> Then, as I said, both were contemporary (they lived in the same span of history), although Neanderthal came first by some hundred of thousand of years. What I meant is that the evolution of Neanderthal was <b>not as fast</b> as that of Cro-Magnon. Both species had completely different traits and physical conformation, specially in their skulls: Neanderthal skulls are more ape like, prognatism, recessed foreheads, etc, while Cro-Magnon fossils show a skull conformation almost identical to present Caucasian man.

From which species Cro-Magnon evolved, and why his evolution was so fast? Neanderthal were superbly adapted to their environment, as gorillas and other apes are adapted to theirs. Why the evolution of Neanderthal stopped, or better still, why it was so slow, as compared with the Cro-Magnon?.

We should differentiate between “evolution” –slow changes in morphology, something undeniable, and “abrupt” changes, surely due to mutation. There are many factors that can induce mutation in the genes and DNA, as radioactivity, cosmic rays, chemical imbalances, excess of some chemicals in the food or the environment.

But, of course, I have not intention of convincing anyone about the “DNA tampering” made by “aliens”. Archeology and Paleontology still are at they “diapers stage”, although I reckon they are making some good progress with the advent of new technologies as Cesium dating for non-organic fossils and artifacts.

There are some strange things (unexplained by conventional science) as the ancient and lost civilization in the high Andes, about 60 million years ago, as depicted in the now famous “Ocucaje library of stones”, perhaps better known as the “<b>Ica stones</b>”. I read the first accounts of these strange stones in the early 70s, as I was in Lima, Perú, starting a filming expedition to the Amazon jungle. I went then to Arequipa, and later to Ica, where I met Dr. Cabrera D’Arquea M.D., the man that was studying the stones –purely in an amateurish way, that ultimately led him to become a well respected investigator in this ancient civilization.

These stones were analyzed at the University of Bonn and found (by measuring the hardness –in Brinner or Rockwell units- of the surface and the carvings of the originals, comparing them with some “fakes” provided) that the carvings are about 60 million years old. This is, the surface of the carvings are as hard as the surface of the stone, showing a “weathering” due to exposition to the atmosphere, that does not appear in the fake stones. In the fakes, the surface of the carvings are harder than the stone surface, showing there was no weathering, so the carvings in the fakes are recent.

In short, as you must surely know by now, these collection of carved stones depict extremely strange stories, as men fighting against dinosaurs, heart and brain transplants, flying machines, men looking through telescopes, etc. What’s amazing, is that these stones tell about a medical technique used now for hearth transplants: blood transfusion to the patient from a pregnant woman. As you know, pregnant women produces an anti-rejection hormone that prevents the patient’s antibodies to reject the transplanted organ. And the scientists who developed this technique took it from the Ica stones.

As I said, we have a lot to learn if we keep investigating our planet’s history.

not sure if i believe in evolution. i definitely believe in God. but whether he used evolution as his method of dispersing life, i dont know. i think on the whole i dont believe evolution. there hasnt been enough time since the beginning of the universe :D :D

pete

i definitely believe in God. but whether he used evolution as his method of dispersing life, i dont know. i think on the whole i dont believe evolution. there hasnt been enough time since the beginning of the universe

It appears you don't know the first thing about evolution. You might want to consider reading up a bit to better understand it so that your responses aren't so silly.

Evolution? Definitely.

"But I also wonder why we find scorpions are found in totally different environments as the Sahara desert, the Amazon jungle and prairies and sabanas."

Why are humans found in totally different environments such as the sahara desert, the amazon jungle, and prairies and savannas? Not to be blunt, but its called migration. If the species can survive in many different places and they can get there, they will live there.

"Organically, more complex forms are weaker (the human species is an example, we are not as resistant to radioactivity as scorpions and cockroaches) or to some chemicals, although the human species is not harmed by chemicals that rapidly kill insects (DDT is an example). "

Your example proves the first statement here to be a misnomer. species are only different. Difference is the key, not better or worse. If a mutant species can survive it most likely will live on to produce more of its same type and, evenutally, more mutants. Humans may be more succeptable to radiation, but bugs are killed by DDT. It is just coinciedence. Radiation kills humans better than it kills bugs, big deal. As for the DDT, we use that because it has more effect on bugs than humans. No species can be labeled as "weaker" than another. We all survive because we are more or less equally strong for our environment.

That stuff about the stones is pretty interesting. I tried for a bit to find any contradictory evidence or people refuting it as a hoax, and I didn't find anything, even though most of the sites say many people consider it a hoax.

"there hasnt been enough time since the beginning of the universe "

Really? Do you have any idea how much time 20 billion years is? In just one million years, There can be 10,000 generations of humans IF EACH HUMAN LIVED 100 YEARS!! This give plenty of generations for things like bacteria that reproduce daily. Not enough time my ass.

It appears you don't know the first thing about evolution. You might want to consider reading up a bit to better understand it so that your responses aren't so silly. in what way!!!??? :mad: i meant god could have just started life and let it develop on its own i.e. evolution.

It is clear to see that in the scheme of things here on Earth, that things are constantly changing. On what terms to we define evolution? One can see that when we as humans are taken from a cold winter atmosphere and subjected to a hot sunny desert enviornment we adapt and evolve to new conditions...Consisting of a change in diet...Leaving open an area to new diseases and infections thus changes the structures and appearances of our bodies...And evidence most seen would be a drastic change in skin color...THIS ALL COULD BE CATAGORIZED AS EVOLUTION BEFORE OUR EYES! and this is most likely what accured on the evolutionary chain with past history...And who is to say what humans will look like in the far future?

Take for example TECHNOLOGY! Science, industry, Modern Skyscraper Buildings, Medicines...Could this all not be considered Evolution?

This however does not exclude G-D in any way! Evolution is the FULL MANESFESTATION OF SOMETHING THAT IS ALIVE!...Our cells age untill they malfunction and the physical body dies. In the same respect is all life forms, the Earth and all Stars...The energy changes form and than life if born again...

EVOLUTION AND G-D GO HAND IN HAND AND ARE ONE AND THE SAME!

CAT...

what about the contamination threoy?

Evolution is a change in reproductive material of a population.

It just may have been the contamination theory that has evolved us into what we are today!

It has been proven that several thousand years ago there was more oxygen in the air. They had discovered this in trapped air pockets in anchient Amber.

Now considering that, the less oxygen and contaminants we have in the air now is causing us to breath harder thus, exspanding our lungs, making for bigger brains. Yikes, are we the Aliens of the future??? What would we have to look like physically to exsist for long periods of time in space???

It could be a simple virus or bacteria that is evolving us for adaptation. This very virus could alter our DNA and Chromosomes permanantly!

It is also known that high doses of vitamins can also alter ones DNA.

So lets take all this into consideration...


CAT...

Originally posted by Adam
I hate to be the bearer of truth, but...


Except for all the evidence supporting the theory...


Actually fossils representing several sages of human evolution have been found.


More information please?


1) Such fossils have been found.

2) This is an awfully large planet. Archaeologists have barely scratched the surface of it. Only this year an entire city was discovered right beside a country of one billion people (referring to the sunken city off the coast of India). Until early this year, nobody knew it was there. To say that all things which might be discovered must have been discovered by now, and no future discoveries are likely, is pure idiocy.


See all of the above points. Evolution has supporting evidence. Creationism does not.


And you are basing your estimates of the times involved on...?


Humanity. Top of the food chain.

Awesome post Adam. :)

Originally posted by p_ete2001
:mad: i meant god could have just started life and let it develop on its own i.e. evolution. "Could"? Wow! I guess he could have done just that. Conversely, life may have come into being when pixie dust mixed with unicorn farts. Or, prhaps, the Sumerian myths are correct. Then there's some tale about a turtle, but I've never really found it to be very compelling. Finally, of course, there's always that silly story pushed by the YHWH crowd - they've been such pompous bastards ever since they got that Pagan Emperor's endorsment.

So many options. So little reason.

"God" is neither a theory nor an answer - it's a place holder awaiting both.

Originally posted by p_ete2001
in what way!!!??? :mad: i meant god could have just started life and let it develop on its own i.e. evolution.


the problem with the intelligent design theory is that it doesn't do anything for science. It just tries to prick holes in the theory of evolution, without providing a viable theory itself that can generate scientific questions, experiments, subtheories etc.

therefore it is pointless to assume this position

The middle option was correct. And I do not believe in evolution. I know it is a fact.

Originally posted by notPresidentAndrew
The middle option was correct. And I do not believe in evolution. I know it is a fact.

how do you know that the middle one is correct?

Originally posted by notPresidentAndrew
The middle option was correct. And I do not believe in evolution. I know it is a fact. No you don't.

Originally posted by wet1
Actually evolution does not happen on that time scale. You need to think in longer terms. There are still gaps in our knowledge of what goes where and examples of each step. We are looking for links that are literal 1000's and 100'000's of years old and longer. It is a wonder that there is anything to find after that amount of time. Missing steps leave doubts.

Science has changed a lot of that. I am sure you no longer doubt that matter can have three physical states. You can research the science that proves such.


Genuine evolution takes more like millions of years.

Note: There are six states of matter, not three.

Originally posted by Tristan
Actually four..... Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma


I think *scratches head*, :eek:
T:D

six, not four

I have concocted my own "doctrine" pertaining to the esoteric and troublesome origins of humanity"

I believe that a group of intrepid and rather ambitious entities with abilities and aptitudes we would regard as divine become extremely inebriated by imbibing some exotic alien nourishment and decided to create a vibrant, inquisitive, and intellectual race in the most remote and mundane region of the cosmos conceivable. Thus, we came to be. Now we, being the unaware victims of an astronomical joke, are doomed to vainly question our existence.

Redoubtable:

"There are six states of matter, not three."

There are actually infinite states of matter. I know what he means by three states, but what are "the" six states of matter? I've only heard of four, not counting bose-einstein condensate (which I think is one.. or are there 2 types of condensate?)

notPresidentAndrew:

"The middle option was correct. And I do not believe in evolution. I know it is a fact."

You mean you THINK the middle option is correct. This is a poll of opinion not of reason (given that god defies all reason in the first place).

There is plenty of evidence out there to refute evolution, the problem is it gets swept under the rug so fast that no one learns about it. In my opinion evolution is just a tax supported religion. The evolutionists bible is the geological column (may not have spelled that right) and it doesn't exsist anywhere. There is no evidence for evolution and there never will be.

There is plenty of evidence out there to refute evolution, the problem is it gets swept under the rug so fast that no one learns about it.

which evidence might that be?


There is no evidence for evolution and there never will be.

You do realize that you will go to hell for telling lies don't you?

Well one good piece of evidence is the fact that there are petrified trees standing up through multiple layers of rock... I find it hard to believe that a tree would stand up for millions of years while sediments filled in around it. The grand canyon couldn't have been formed by the colorodo river because it cuts right through the Kiabab Uplift. The river would have had to flow up-hill in order to form Grand Canyon. There are also a number of "limiting factors" that limit the earths age to less than 6500 years. Yes, thats not a typo, I said 6500 years. The oldest tree in the world is only 4400 years old. And as far as the geological column goes, it's just circular reasoning. They date the rocks based on what fossils are in them and then they turn around and date the fossils based on what rock layer they came from. And no I'm not going to hell because that wasnt a lie, plus I'm a Christian.

Well one good piece of evidence is the fact that there are petrified trees standing up through multiple layers of rock... I find it hard to believe that a tree would stand up for millions of years while sediments filled in around it. The grand canyon couldn't have been formed by the colorodo river because it cuts right through the Kiabab Uplift. The river would have had to flow up-hill in order to form Grand Canyon. There are also a number of "limiting factors" that limit the earths age to less than 6500 years. Yes, thats not a typo, I said 6500 years. The oldest tree in the world is only 4400 years old. And as far as the geological column goes, it's just circular reasoning. They date the rocks based on what fossils are in them and then they turn around and date the fossils based on what rock layer they came from. And no I'm not going to hell because that wasnt a lie, plus I'm a Christian.

uh...earth is 6500 years old?

uh...because the oldest living tree is only 4400 years old?

Wouldn't the earth be a lot hotter if it was only 6500 years old? I would imagine that much of the surface would be still molten rock!

What meaning are people putting on the word evolution here? I think its important to get that out of the way first. Like, can evolution happen? The answer to that must be yes. Does evolution happen? Again the answer must be yes. But I think many people here are questioning whether Homo Sapiens has evolved from a single celled organism some 3 billion years ago, am I correct?

well, for one thing, the earth wouldn't be any hotter now because it was never a piece of molten rock to begin with. There are 6 different types of evolution and only 1 type is true and is a scientific fact, that type is micro evolution a.k.a. variations. Those happen all the time but never produce a different kind of animal. Some other facts to ponder...

The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.

The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents.

The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.

Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.

Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old.

All the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star—today it is a white dwarf star. Since today’s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.

Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation.

The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution

A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution.

The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4400 years.

The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years.

The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old.

The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old.

Biblical dates add up to about 6000 years

Well I think this post is long enough, I can also disprove the big bang theory if you want...

I'll make a short post for you:

link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html)

I'm not familiar with radiometric dating but all of the information I gave directly points to a young earth. Also you may want to look here:

carbon (http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=10)

It is nice to know that you question the laws of physics.

for your 4400 year old tree:

dendrochronology:
Now for the clever bit. The tree from which your sample came may have been old before any trees now alive were even saplings. So you can extend the known pattern of rings back even further, and hence date samples of wood which are even older. By lining up samples of wood in this way, dendrochronologists have been able to produce a continuous pattern of rings going back around 9,900 years. This easily refutes the chronology of Bishop Usher, who calculated from dates and ages given in the Bible that the Earth was created in 4004 BC.

link (http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_5.html#5.3)

-----------------
And another nice article explaining why your objections to carbon dating are not very convincing

A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock's age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.

It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only1% or so.

link2 (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html)

How was I questioning the law of physics? My evidence was based on what we can observe in nature, while the age of the rocks mentioned in your article was based on a man made formula prone to error.

How was I questioning the law of physics?

you deny the validity of radiometric dating which is based on the laws of physics.


My evidence was based on what we can observe in nature, while the age of the rocks mentioned in your article was based on a man made formula prone to error.

You have made no observation that the earth is 6500 years old. You read it in the bible (hearsay).

What did you observe?

You observed that the oldest living tree is 4400 years old. I pointed out that if you combine the rings of different trees you can easily go back 9000 years. That is an observation that is hardly questionable. There is no room for error here. No fancy machines needed or formulas. You could even go out and check it for yourself. Basically it already kills your entire argument that the earth is 6500 years old (which isn't even an observation).

I didn't deny the validity of it, I just said I wasn't familiar with it. Also, just because one piece of information I said has a chance of being false doesn't mean everything I said was false. There was plenty of evidence to prove that we live on a young earth created by God.

I’ll do a few of them and leave the rest for someone else:

The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.

I see you haven’t done the math. In the past 4.5 billion years the sun has lost a total amount of mass that has resulted in an increased orbit of the Earth by only 7000 miles, well within the habitable zone.

Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents.

There were no oceans on the Earth billions of years ago because an object striking the Earth formed the moon; hence the Earth and moon were molten rock in that time and for quite a time afterwards.

The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.

Both the U-236 and Th-230 on the moon are of recent origin and were generated from the radioactive decay of U-238, which has a half-life of almost 4.5 billion years.

Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.

The rings may have formed less than 100 million years ago but this has nothing to do with the age of the planet.

If Gods exists then what happened the the literally thousands of gods and goddesses throughout history that we don't even know the names of anymore because they were lost in the antiquity of time. They were no less real to the people of that time than the gods we know and worship now.

Old thread, I noticed, but since it's active I decided to read it. Anyhow..

I think most of the gods and goddesses throughout history aren't really gods in the sense of the almighty-creator-of-all god, but are rather demi-gods.

If we create a newborn through cloning, we are technically their gods as we created them. Back when we were still exploring the world with our advanced technology and native tribes saw us in flying machines, we seemed to be gods to them. So the same applies to us thousands of years ago. If we saw a more advanced species, we would look to them as gods as well. And if we were created by another species, they would be our god. However, they wouldn't be the almighty-creator-of-all god, whoever it may be, they would just be demi-gods like us. And that's why they died off through the years... in my opinion. :p

That's all in regards to worshipped humanoid beings like us, not gods that are symbolic in nature such as the sun or something like a bird.

- N

I didn't deny the validity of it, I just said I wasn't familiar with it. Also, just because one piece of information I said has a chance of being false doesn't mean everything I said was false. There was plenty of evidence to prove that we live on a young earth created by God.

No there isn't. It is just in your head.
The tree lines alone show that earth is at least 9000 years old.

Radiometric dating shows it is even much older.

Do you have a problem with radiometric dating? Are you questioning our basic understanding of radioactive decay?

I think radont should be banned.

Sir Charles Darwin was, and remains, the chief observer of animate chemical(biochemical) intereactives(or's) of Earth, as well as all foward looking pro-idealistical alter-terraformer's as well as non equisitentials of plain Earth practicing naturalists.

Simply stated, "That which can continue, will, while the rest will fail"....The greatest math, Algebra, ect.....backs up that statement to A "TTTTTTT".

well, for one thing, the earth wouldn't be any hotter now because it was never a piece of molten rock to begin with.
So u are saying that god created the earth and the stars and the galaxies. oK explain why he created the galaxies just for us then! Also, why did he make the interior of the earth molten? Why didn't he just create a solid earth then?
There are 6 different types of evolution and only 1 type is true and is a scientific fact, that type is micro evolution a.k.a. variations. Those happen all the time but never produce a different kind of animal.

No, there's plenty of evidence for one animal changing into another! Its not direct evidence but neither is saying that the earth is 6500 years old!

Sorry to be so blunt, people! I'm not GOD............but maybe ...a few address ###'s......... :m: :m:


Think Darwin............ :cool:

BEEN PSYCHIC BEFORE!!!111 aSK BANSHEEE ABOUT 09/10/01 :cool: :D :cool: Just thought I'd throw that in.......John Conners

The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.....

I see you haven’t done the math. In the past 4.5 billion years the sun has lost a total amount of mass that has resulted in an increased orbit of the Earth by only 7000 miles, well within the habitable zone.

The Sun may lose mass in its stellar wind and by mass-energy conversion, but - like the Earth - it is also accreting diffuse matter from the space it travels through. Earth grows a net few thousand tons heavier each day; the Sun probably also gains more than it sheds. But, as you said, not enough to make much difference, even over billions of years.

Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents...

There were no oceans on the Earth billions of years ago because an object striking the Earth formed the moon; hence the Earth and moon were molten rock in that time and for quite a time afterwards.

Even so, Earth would have cooled off and formed oceans while the Moon was still pretty close in. Massive tides would indeed have caused rapid erosion - Earth's volcanic and tectonic processes were also much more violent back then, however. New land was probably forming quite fast enough.

Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old.

Jupiter & Saturn radiate more heat than they receive because they still generate it internally. Some very plausible mechanisms of chemical differentiation have been put forward, allowing heavier elements within the giant planets to sink towards the centres and produce heat by gravitational potential energy. It may also be that the compressed metal core of a gas giant acts as a natural fission reactor. The same has even been suggested for the Earth: anything Earth can do with internal pressure, Jupiter can surely do better.

All the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star—today it is a white dwarf star. Since today’s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.

Sirius B is a white dwarf; Sirius A, the one we see, is a thriving main-sequence star, still to enter its red giant phase. Since Sirius B's red giant days are clearly millions of years behind it (and it wouldn't have been a neighbour to Sol back then), I don't see how the Sirius system can have looked red a few thousand years ago. I certainly never heard of this! Just possibly, there was a small, dense dust cloud between it and us back then; more likely, the translation of some antiquated record was in error and Betelgeuse was mistaken for Sirius.

Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation.

Topsoil in the northern temperate regions has only been accumulating since the end of the last ice age - indeed, just a matter on millennia. Laterite soils in the tropics are often far deeper and older.

The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution

What do you mean? The original rotation rate of the Earth may have been only a few hours. Tidal effects bleed away the Earth's rotational angular momentum, but this will not lead to a LINEAR increase in the length of a day: when the rotaion was faster, the loss of a given quantity of mechanical energy would make less difference to the rotation period than it would now.

A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why the continental drift theory is vehemently defended by those who worship evolution.

In many places, deep ocean sediment is dredged up again by currents. It returns to the surface waters and fertilizes phytoplankton. Sediments are also disturbed by earthquakes, buried under new lava flows, etc. Some parts of the Indian Ocean basin do have sedimentary deposits many kilometers thick, deeper than the water standing above them. Still, continental drift does keep the oceanic crust relatively young.

"The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years."

Just shear numbers wise, maybe. Without some divine intervention at some point, a major revolution in the science of genetics, or some period of abnormally high mutation rates, I don't see how that scenario could result in the genetic diversity currently found in the human race, granted relative to other species we're not terribly diverse anyway.

BEEN PSYCHIC BEFORE!!!111 aSK BANSHEEE ABOUT 09/10/01 Just thought I'd throw that in.......John Conners

What are u talking bout Howard?! I never understand wat ur saying :D

If Humans did really evolve from chimps, then how come chimps still exist. EH??

If Humans did really evolve from chimps, then how come chimps still exist. EH??
Thats the internet discussion equivalent of singing "I know the most annoying song in the world and it goes something like this. I know the most annoying song in the world and it goes something like this..." and so forth.

isn't asking "do you believe in evolution" pretty much like asking "do you believe in gravity"?

Okay what ever you say people...........Just stop yelling at me.

Never!!!!!!!!!!

If Humans did really evolve from chimps, then how come chimps still exist. EH??
The simple answer is that they didn't. We share a common ancestor with chimps, and didn't split away from them that long ago, as far as evolutionary time is concerned.

I'm not sure why I should be banned... I haven't insulted anyone, I'm, just being argumentative. Anyway, heres a story about radiometric dating for you.

Two aliens come from planet nepschron to do some "scientific dating"
on high
school students. They first fly to Illinois and begin measuring the height
of highschoolers. They find that the average height is about 65in. They
continue to watch these students for a couple more years and find that they
grow about 1in each year. So, by their "scientific dating", they have
come
to the conclusion that these highschoolers are 65 years old. Of course this
isn't enough evidence to convince everybody else, so they decide to do more
"scientific" work. They fly to California, and begin measuring the
weight of
the average highschooler. After a year of restless work they conclude that
the average weight is 130 pounds and that the average high school student
gains 2 pounds per year, indicating they are 65 years old. Confidently, now
with two separate measurements, in two separate locations, they conclude
that the average weight and height, as well as the inflation rate shows
"scientifically" that highschoolers are 65 years old. Now, the parents
came
to see what was going on with the aliens and their studies. The aliens
stated that the students were - after "Scientific Scrutiny" - found to
be 65
years old. Shockingly the parents dispute these claims and assure the aliens
that the students are not the proposed ages. "We've got first hand
experience, we know their history!" said the parents. "Listen ma'am,
we have
done scientific work here, and all we want is the scientific data." Ask
yourself, what went wrong?

I'm sure you can get the point here.

click here (http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=48) for a very interesting article on our supposed ape ancestors.

I think you should be banned because your arguments are a waste of everyone's time. Counter productive. We have to back track and revise things we are already 100% certain about just to get some snail up to speed.

how can you be 100% sure of a theory? Arn't theories just guesses?

how can you be 100% sure of a theory? Arn't theories just guesses?

You need to go to Europe and get a proper education. That is all I can say.


We already established that your 6500 year old earth is not a valid theory because there are different sets of data that suggest it is at least 9000 years old, and probably billions years old.

6500 is not between 9000 and a few billion. Hence it is not an option. Remember that we established 9000 years on the same principle as you established that the oldest tree is 4400 years old. By counting year rings.

That is scientific reasoning.


Now the ball is in your court and you have to come up with something better than an analogy.

The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old.

Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught.

The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young.

At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years.

The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions.

The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth’s lava was deposited rapidly.

Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation.

The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.)

The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils.

Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.)

The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years.

The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah’s day could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.)

lets stick with one topic. We are not rabbits here jumping from one thing to the other.

You claimed previously that the earth was 6500 years old. We now have seen that it can't be. It is definitely older.

Now you would like to disclaim it is billions of years old.

You now present a random list (probably copied from somewhere else).

This is not how a discussion goes. I can give you a million references to scientific articles that have as a topic 'evolution'. Should I present this list and let you go through them all and refute them all?

No, because it rather impolite to do so. We don't have an unlimited time.

We had already established that radiometric dating suggests is billions of years old. Clearly your list must be false or the results of radiometric dating are wrong.

So you proof that radiometric dating is wrong.


(Several of your arguments on your list are refuted in the link I gave earlier. That doesn't give a very good impression on the overal quality of your list, or your willingness to discuss matters)

I still beleive that the earth is less than 6500 years old. How did all the matter get here anyway? Do evolutionist still believe in the big bang?

I still beleive that the earth is less than 6500 years old. How did all the matter get here anyway? Do evolutionist still believe in the big bang?

You believe that the earth is 6500 years old, despite obvious scientific evidence that it is older? Why bother posting in a scientific forum then?

Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang.

Evolution is a theory that explains the diversity of life.

radont84

There is no use in answering your questions any further, you didn't even acknowledge the answers already provided for you - instead you ignored them and continued to copy and paste more creationist ignorance.

You are a troll, go away.

I think you should be banned because your arguments are a waste of everyone's time. Counter productive. We have to back track and revise things we are already 100% certain about just to get some snail up to speed.

Please, doctor! No-one should be banned unless they are being offensive. Radont raises some interesting issues, though I believe his overall point is wrong and many of his facts are erroneous.

I still beleive (sic) that the earth is less than 6500 years old.
And that is absolutely, totally, entirely the bottom line.

So. Is there anything we can actually do for you?

Who else voted 6500 years? Go on, show yourselves! :p
Dee Cee

Back to evolution. Evolutionists claim that the evolutionary changes are extremely slow. The fossil evidence says just the opposite. One species 100,000+ years and then over the span of 10 thousand years. Poof a new species. The evolutionist does not have a single fossil with intermediate changes. The closest one that I have heard of is the bird with scales and feathers. (Auchorix ?) Just one problem is that it has perfect feathers and perfect scales. All the other examples are just selection from a trait that exists in the population. We share 90% of our genes with chimps that leaves quiet a variety of genes to express.

Can I recomend a reading of Darwin?
Let us have some inteligent, educated supposing please. There are some rationality genes which apparently most of you in here did in fact Not inherit - be it from chimp or any other life form.

Perhaps you fell in the amoeba gene pool?
- no i'll not resort to insults, sorry.

aaaaaaany-how:


Mr. Radont:

Theories aren't just guesses.

Hypothesis are.

Theories have scientific basings, assumed knowledge and a somewhat large amount of proof behind it. Theories are accepted as true, by definition.

The idea that "theory" means speculation is a misuse of the word.

That's what "hypothesis" is there for.


Along with a thorough reading of Darwin can I also recomend a consultation of an encyclopaedic dictionary?

Thanks.

one last thing... even if the world is 6500 years old... does that rule out evolution? :confused:

actually, check that... yeah it does.. not enough time for it... unless the first few billion years got processed in a soup factory and now come "condensed". 6500 is just unreasonable, and quite random.

Radont:
I actually read that link you gave, or rather read about a bit over a third before I could stand no more. Let's see what dr dino has to say...Dr. Dino says...
This assertion is based on a long-standing evolutionary assumption, usually stated something like this: "Humans are the only creatures that have evolved to the point where they can walk on two feet; therefore, if we can find the fossil of an animal that could walk on two feet, such a creature was our ancestor."

Exactly who is it that assumes this? I'd say only the good dr and his creationist flunkies. This is a patently ridiculous statement.

From there it seems to go into a listing of various fraudulent archeological finds down the years. Who do you think debunked these fakes? I'd guess other archeologists. The science keeps itself in check. Who's keeping dr dino in check?

Frankly, I gave up at this point. None of these frauds are any news to the science. I learned about most of them while learning about all the others that weren't frauds.

People that swallow this tripe make me sick. It's obviously simply grasping at straws trying to prop their more and more unlikely view of the world. Science is crafted piece by piece, one thing building on another. If something is determined false then it is thrown out (usually), and everything that depends on it is thrown out. But you fundamentalist can't simply throw out your heirlooms of wisdom handed down from primitive tribes that knew next to nothing about the world in which they lived and desperately told themselves stories to make themselves feel wise.

But I don't think he radont should be banned. Free speech and all that. You don't have to argue with him if you don't want to. Someone else alway will :p

But jaded flower are we not all part of the amoebae gene pool according to evolution? Which part of Darwin specifically? I have stated that I am willing to believe in selection just not in evolution. Show me some facts to back up your theories. I know why I believe what I believe. Do you know why you believe what you believe? Until I see evidence that convinces me otherwise evolution is just an unsupported hypothesis. Show me some proof.

By Tristan: “Actually there are a lot of facts that support evolution BUT you can dispute it. There is no real HARD evidence that proves evolution with out a doubt.

Example: in evolution, animals are supposed to change from one thing to another... also called adaptation. We have never witnessed a bird change into a lizard or vice versa. Just small adaptations in crabs that look like they have faces on them, etc.
First: The poll is absurd. It lack many other options, as “Evolution exists, but we know very little about it – and we know about God as much as we do about evolution”.

Second: We know little about evolution, but we know a little more about involution – and as involution is another form of evolution, then there are grounds to think evolution could exist in the way we know it.

Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 1984 an excellent book called “Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes”, (Further Reflections on Natural History), and in page 313, inside chapter 24, “Phyletic Size Decrease in Hershey Bars”, he says, and I quote:<dir>“I am a paleontologist –one of those oddballs who parlayed his childhood fascination for dinosaurs into a career. We search the history of life for repeated patterns, mostly without success. One generality that works more often than it fails is called “Cope’s rule of phyletic size increase.” For reasons yet poorly specified, body size tends to increase fairly steadily within evolutionary lineages.”
…
“The opposite phenomenon of gradual size decrease is surpassingly rare. There is a famous foram (a single-celled marine creature) that got smaller and smaller before disappearing entirely. An extinct, but once a major group, the graptolites (floating, colonial marine organisms, perhaps related to vertebrates) began life with a large number of “stipes” (branches bearing a row of individuals). The number of “stipes” then decreased progressively in several lineages, to eight, four, and two, until all surviving graptolites possessed but a single “stipe”. Then they disappeared.”</dir>So it is a well know fact that some organisms involved (or evolved back?) until they couldn’t adapt to their environment and died. This is also something that has to do with the called “biochron”, or the time lapse for any species to exist on Earth (or anywhere else). As an example, as some renown ethologists claim, the biochron of whales is reaching its end. They say whales are “traitors” of the mammal species, returned to the oceans, and couldn’t fully readapt to the old environment, so whales are doomed for extinction because their own stupidity, and not for other reasons. It is a theory, of course, but it is worth mentioning.

Evolution exists for sure, and that’s been proven by involution - we know it is an involution or a “wrong change” because it didn’t succeed and provoked extinction. But the concept of "evolution” does not rule out many other external factors, ie, ancient extraterrestrial tampering with primate genes, or something weird as that. The world is huge, and full of surprises, so why rule out any unknown possibilities?

But we must rule out the “6500 or 9000 years old world”, because there is enough evidence of geological periods that takes Earth's history 4.5 billion years back. Anyhow, I would advise of separating religion from science because they don’t mix well. Religion is based on beliefs, while science (or knowledge), rely on facts born from continuous and repeated observation.

You "belive" in God although you have never seen him, and have no hard evidence of his existance. It means you infer his existence from other things, old wrintings and traditions, visions, reasoning, etc, that is, "circumstantial evidence"; while you "know" scientific facts because you can see, smell, hear, touch, taste, and measure them. Facts are solid, religious beliefs are abstract, a fabrication of the mind.

Personally, I belive in God, but have no solid proof of it.

I know why I believe what I believe. Do you know why you believe what you believe? Until I see evidence that convinces me otherwise evolution is just an unsupported hypothesis. Show me some proof.You have written the answer in your question. As I said in my last post, “facts” are different from “beliefs”. But while FACTS may lead you into believing in something, BELIFS will lead you NOT to any facts or evidences. Beliefs are self-supporting. They don't need external or additional evidence.

Answering to you question: “Do you know why you believe what you believe?” – Yes I know why I believe. Most of what I believe is a product of observation. Science is based on observation and replication. I acknowledge that some part of my beliefs have no factual basis or scientific evidence – and that’s called SUPERSTITION. Fortunately, my superstitious beliefs are quite few, and date back from my childhood – as the belief in God.

And as that belief has no caused me any problem, I do not want to get rid of it. But don’t talk to me about churches – the economic exploitation of religions – because I don’t believe in any CULT. The world is already full of “CARGO CULTS” , and most problems in the world stem from there. Gullible people who believe in something that some crooks tells them they must believe in – if they want to save their souls, or the whales, the ozone layer, the environment, or the planet, or whatever.

There should be a law for protecting Man against his own stupidity.

No one should be protected from their own stupidity. How else will they learn without consequences? Facts may also lead you to question something as well. It is a fact that every system heads toward the lowest state. Although I do not attend a cult regularly I do not believe that most of this world's problems are caused by them. I believe that most of this world's problems are caused by a lack of opportunities for those who do not have a piece of the pie to get a piece. Most churches try to change this one person at a time. Just because you believe a theory to be true does not make it true. It is a fact that evolution contradicts thermal dynamics. Until there is evidence that modifies the laws of thermal dynamics it is just a theory not a fact.

Thermal dynamics has three principles. Which one of these principles is contradicted by the evolutionary theory? And how?

I have a fairly good understanding of Physics and chemistry, but cannot imagine in which way this could happen. Do you imply an evolutionary change means some energy was created from nowhere? Mutations are evolutions, and they happen, we like it or not…

I agree that some people should be left to face the consequences of their own, individual stupidity, but the law I suggest is for protecting innocent people from the stupidity of politicians and other people gathered in organizations of any kind. But I guess what I suggest is Utopia. The word "Stupid" comes from ancient Greece, meaning "those who vote".

Until I see evidence that convinces me otherwise evolution is just an unsupported hypothesis. Show me some proof. Take any biology book. You’ll see that in ancient times wheat was a different variety from the present one. Although the latest varieties are genetically modified by man, there still are different wheat varieties in the world that have been “evolving” naturally. The same with rice, corn, and especially potatoes: there are in Bolivia (and the rest of Andean countries) about 100 natural varieties of potatoes, all originating from an ancient original species. Now you have your proof. Now what?

All im gonna say for the people that voted less than 10000 years, bones have been dated older than 10000 years old, do the math, if they are older than that, the earth must be older.

I will state again that there is proof that both nature and man can refine what genes are already there to select for a specific already existing trait. What I have trouble believing is that there is a process that creates new genes in an ever more complex fashion.

Perhaps you could try and clarify things, laughing weasel:

"proof that both nature and man can refine what genes are already there to select for a specific already existing trait"

What do you mean? Do you mean breeding or Gm crops of what?

"What I have trouble believing is that there is a process that creates new genes in an ever more complex fashion."

Why is that? do you know about the laws of thermodynamics? Then, can you accept that microevolution is an observed phenomenon, and you can watch bateria doing all sorts of things, such as evolving antibiotic resistance. I would suggest that loking for a specific process is too narrow, what you seem to want is a thermodynamic explanation for why more complex systems survive and grow more complex. Have not motor car engines in the past 100 years?

Back to evolution. Evolutionists claim that the evolutionary changes are extremely slow.

No, they don't. You think that they do.

An evolutionary change always takes one generation. That is the speedometer of evolution. The question is how much change is possible within this single generation, and how many generations you need for a major change. Speciation has been observed within out lifetime. That is fairly quick I would say. Of course, don't try to find a speciation event in very long lived animals such as elephants, or turtles and expect it to see it with your own eyes.

bones have been dated older than 10000 years old

What dating methods were used to date these bones?

I will state again that there is proof that both nature and man can refine what genes are already there to select for a specific already existing trait. What I have trouble believing is that there is a process that creates new genes in an ever more complex fashion.

That process is called mutation

Actually, mutations never create new genes, they just rearrange old ones in new ways like a bull growing an extra leg or a fly growing some extra wings.

If something is determined false then it is thrown out (usually), and everything that depends on it is thrown out.

I disagree, I think scientists have their own agendas and anything that doesn't conform to their theories is covered up, like man and dinosaurs living at the same time, this is a proven fact yet no one knows about it.

Actually, mutations never create new genes, they just rearrange old ones in new ways like a bull growing an extra leg or a fly growing some extra wings.

No they don't. They rearrange old DNA to create new genes.

Are you saying they create new genes like a human growing wings? Could you give an exaple of this?

Genes are an arrangement of DNA. Rearranging the molecule can result in new genes. If many of these genes are expressed in the right way then a new feature might be formed in the phenotype.

You don't have any examples though?

What do u mean examples? Every limb on your body was created a few months after conception due to the expression of certain genes during those months. If these genes were expresssed differently it is possible to develop flying wings :D

So, how probable is it that our DNA will get re-arranged? Wouldn't that kill us? Mutations observed in nature are never beneficial.

Mutations observed in nature are never beneficial.
See thats just not even close to true. Some mutations are beneficial. Some are not. For instance, the aids virus mutates against current treatments. It can happen over a period as quick as 6 months. After that time, the medicane then becomes ineffective. (not beneficial to humans but it sure is to AIDS) Thats why some people with aids have like an entire drawer filled with different medicanes they have to take every day.

The biggest problem I see here in this thread right now is Semantics. Mutation is Evolution. Evolution is adaption. Adaption is Natural or Artificial selection.

New Gene= one that previously did not exist
Old Gene with mutation= gene that did not previously exist.
Single deletion of ONE base pair, can cause a FRAME SHIFT= In which the entire gene is changed completely, so that it may look nothing like the original because amino acids are encoded by 3 base like CAG, or GAG, Etc.

And dont forget the definition of Evolution. It simply means, SIMPLY: CHANGE OVER TIME. Thats it! Everything else is connotations that have been impregnated in your mind over time.

Remember the key principles.

Later
T

P.S. When you say "Wouldn't are DNA rearranging kill us?", you must understand something. Our genetic code has taken 3 billion years to perfect... Any sudden rearrangement of genes, on a mass scale, would probably turn us into a pile of goo. Matter-o-fact, there would be no viable embryo even produced with such a rearrangement of genes.

like man and dinosaurs living at the same time, this is a proven fact yet no one knows about it.

First of all, give an example if you are going to say that. Second of all, what's your definition of dinosaurs?

Dictionary.com

di·no·saur ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dn-sôr)
n.
1. Any of various extinct, often gigantic, carnivorous or herbivorous reptiles of the orders Saurischia and Ornithischia that were chiefly terrestrial and existed during the Mesozoic Era.
2. A relic of the past: “living dinosaurs of the world of vegetation” (John Olmsted).
3. One that is hopelessly outmoded or unwieldy: “The old, big-city teaching hospital is a dinosaur” (Peggy Breault).

That statement might hold up on the legs of definition #2. But thats not the primary definition (#1) in which your statement is flat wrong.

If you really want to be technical, we STILL are living with dinosaurs. They're called crocodiles. Grrr...


Later
T

What dating methods were used to date these bones?
Carbon Dating. Anything that has ever lived on this planet has carbon in its "body". By measuring how many times that particular carbon has decayed (half-life; Carbon's is between 3500yrs and 7000 I believe depending on what isotope you use), you can determine the approximate age of what you are carbon dating.

Also, if the specimen is found in a layer of rock that is 7 million years old, chances are, if there is good evidence that layer of rock wasn't disturbed, that the specimen is as old as the layer.

Later
T

"If something is determined false then it is thrown out (usually), and everything that depends on it is thrown out. "

If this were true, we wouldnt be talking here right now... matter-o-fact, we would be probably still in the stone age.

Later
T

Maybe I spoke in a vague generalization, but overall that's true. Maybe "determined false" is not a good way to say it. If it's determined that it doesn't work would be better. And even that is not exactly right. :p We sure as hell don't believe in crystal spheres anymore, the flat earth got dumped off a long time ago, the earth at the center of the universe (ok, maybe that's still true relatively speaking :p), need I go on? Sure it's hard for new controversial theories to take hold, but it's sure as hell better than dogma. Religionists (is that a word?) still believe unfailingly and unalterably in a rationalization fabricated by primitive tribesmen in a bygone era.

Speaking of DNA, I recently read about how the actual code is evolving and has evolved. I'll quote a bit of the article here:

"At least 16 organisms from a deverse array of evolutionary lineages deviate from nature's standard code in the amino acid 'meaning' they assign to specific standard codons. Many species of the green alga Acetabularia, for example, translate the standard 'stop' codons UAG and UAA as the amino acid glycine. To Candida fundi, the RNA codon CUG, which normally means leucine, instead specifies serine. The existence of such variations demonstrates that the code can evolve and may provide clues about how it did. In all three domains of life, a nonstandard 21st amino acid, selenocysteine, is somtimes fabricated in response to the standard stop codon UGA. ...blah, blah, a 22nd amino acid, pyrrolysine, is produced in the same manner, in response to the standard stop codon UAG."

It then goes on to talk about how the code seems perform a kind of error-minimization. "As early as 1965 Carl R. Woese, then at the university of Illinois, observed that similar codons (those sharing two of three letters) usually specify similar amino acids, so a mistake here or there does not greatly affect the resulting protein." It also talks about how the most common transcription error occurs at the last letter in the sequence. They call it "wobble". "But synonomous codons--those coding for the same amino acid-- usually differ by only their last letters, so such mistranslations often yield the same amino acid meaning."

You seem to know about genetics, do you have any more helpful info about this? It'd be interesting to be able to trace the path of DNA evolution. Which codons were first, which were the first proteins, how the language evolved.

As an aside, it showed a graphic of transcription, the tRNA had an odd shape to my mind. It was basically a key-like shape, with three notches for the codon on the bottom, three circular shapes are arrayed in a cross-like form with a sort-of tail at the top that latches onto a specific amino acid. Is this really how it looks or just a conceptualization? What is tRNA made from? Protein? It'd be far too small wouldn't it? hmmm.

Also, mitochondria is another interesting cell structure. Is it true that the mitochondria was once a separate organism that entered a partnership with old single-cells. What does the mitochondria do? Metabolise oxygen? Giving our cells the ability to "breathe" a once poisonous gas? Amazing what evolution can do.

It's a very interesting read, it's in the April 2004 Scientific American.

Some thoughts on evolution... The FACTS are the fossils, patterns of organic diversity, and DNA. The THEORY of evolution is what explains them. Just as the retrograde motion of the planets, Venus’ phases, and variations in planetary brightness are among the facts the THEORY that Earth revolves around the sun explains.

About evolution and God... Evolution tells us how life came to be where it is, but it does not say why. You can go ahead and have a belief in God and still agree with the theory of evolution because evolution doesn't disprove the idea that God created the world and the life in it. Evolution only contradicts the literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, and how many of you are actually reading that as an exact historical account anyway??

Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did. But, the fact of the matter is there ARE distinct paths, and the theory of evolution is how we explain them. Macroevolution is studied within comparative biochemical and genetic studies, comparative developmental biology, patterns of biogeography, comparative morphology and anatomy and studies of the fossil record. If you know where to look and look with an open mind you'll see that there is tons of proof out there and believe me even if you can come up with a million arguments, you wont be able to argue against the solid proof. Unless of course you just say well God created all that exactly that way, it was all his doing, the tiniest randomest most miniscule similarities we find are all results of Gods hand creating everything and scientists are just wasting their time trying to figure out the delicate intricacies of how life works and how it came to be what it is because, well, God did it.

There is even evidence that over 15 different species of humans have existed over time, and that during the period of 3 to 1 million years ago almost 10 different species of humans existed at the same time. The evidence for evolution is stacking up to the point that to doubt the overwhelming mountain of proof is really to be dumb and insist on turning a blind eye to the whole damn thing.

Are you saying they create new genes like a human growing wings? Could you give an exaple of this?

'How the Chordates got a head'

p761-762
Developmental Biology
Scott F. Gilbert
7th edition, sinauer press

the aids virus mutates against current treatments.
This would be more of a variation rather than a mutation. Even so, it doesn't create a new virus, it's still an aids virus.

Mutation is Evolution. Evolution is adaption. Adaption is Natural or Artificial selection.

None of these produce a new kind of animal, they just keep the species strong. Dogs will produce dogs and cats will produce cats. That's the way it's always been and will always be.


Heres some interesting evidence of man and dinosaurs living together. In 1571 the Spanish conquistadors were exploring what is now Ica, Peru when they discovered rocks with strange creatures carved on them. They had never seen animals like this so they sent some to the King of Spain. He also had never seen such creatures.

Dr. Cabrera, a medical doctor from Lima devoted much of his life (he died in 2001) to collecting and studying these stones. On them you will see people doing brain and heart surgery as well as every known dinosaur clearly depicted. Several hundred of them show humans and dinosaurs together.

Skeptics have tried to portray them as being carved by local peasants for profit. One peasant was even interviewed on TV “admitting” he carved them. What the interview did not show was that there were police officers waiting behind the camera to arrest him and put him in jail (a very bad place to go in Peru!) if he admitted he was selling Peruvian national treasures. When he tried to carve one on TV to show how he did it, the work looked like a child’s work and it was obvious he was not the one carving the actual Ica stones. Also the oxidized coating of “desert varnish” on the stones clearly proves they are several hundred to several thousand years old. Textiles and pottery from the same area also depict man with dinosaurs.

Dr. Dennis Swift of Beverton, OR spent many hours in Peru with Dr. Cabrera analyzing the stones. Dr. Carl Baugh, 254-897-3200, www.creationevidence.org, Dr. Don Patton, 972-279-5325, www.bible.ca/tracks and Antoine Ouellette 450-359-4405 have also devoted much study to this topic. See also, www.wexclub.comfor a similar find of dinosaurs with man in Mexico.

also click here (http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=CarbonPotassiumargondating.htm) to see why carbon dating doesn't work.

None of these produce a new kind of animal, they just keep the species strong. Dogs will produce dogs and cats will produce cats. That's the way it's always been and will always be.



That is not true. I have given references to speciation (in lab and in nature) in other threads.

also click here (http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=CarbonPotassiumargondating.htm) to see why carbon dating doesn't work.

We have been over this before. It works.

Can you provide a non-religious link? Is there a scientist on earth that agrees with you? Or even someone who doesn't believe in the bible that agrees with you?
Doesn't it seem as though these people are mad that the truth contradicts their religious beliefs?
they have an agenda, science does not.
If you knew anything about darwin you would know he was religious and became most distraught when he learned that the bible was a crock of shit. He didn't want to disprove religion, he discovered that real life disproves religion and was disappointed. But being a reasonable human being he couldn't continue lieing to himself.

What are you doing? Have you no common sense? You think the entire world other than a few religious fanatics are wrong? Does that seem like a reasonable assumption to make?
Considering the fact that everyone who learns about life believes in evolution, while people who only learn about the bible do not, who seems like the higher authority on the matter? Its like if athiests were saying they could recite the psalms better than christians without ever reading the bible. Wouldn't that be ridiculous?
I've never read ezekiel, what if I was saying "no ezekiel is about formula 1 racing", would you take me seriously?
This is the same. Do you have some interest in evolution? Have you studied it meticulously searching for knowledge about natural history and life on earth?
No, you clearly don't know anything about it, you just want to disprove it because in your mind that will make religion more credible (and ofcourse it wouldn't anyway).
You're not here to learn about evolution, you're here to say its wrong because you want it to be wrong.
Well its not wrong, get over it. I'll tell you right now all of your links are worthless and do not make a valid point ONCE. None of them have yet and none of them will.

How long will it take for your kind to become extinct? I mean realy talk about continuing against all odds. Like a freaking polar bear in the desert. Its utterly mind boggling that people can continue to not believe in evolution.
Nobody denies evolution, let me rephrase that, nobody who understands denies evolution. The evidence really is that overwhelming.
To continue not believing in