Do You Believe In Evolution? [Archive]

kmguru

07-31-02, 03:20 PM

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.

Cris

07-31-02, 06:07 PM

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

Mr. G

07-31-02, 10:32 PM

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.

Awaranowski

08-01-02, 01:01 AM

"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.

overdoze

08-01-02, 02:34 AM

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.

Awaranowski

08-01-02, 10:46 PM

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

kmguru

08-01-02, 11:17 PM

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.

Porsche

08-12-02, 04:38 PM

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.

overdoze

08-13-02, 01:28 PM

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.

John MacNeil

08-18-02, 05:06 PM

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.

Adam

08-18-02, 05:15 PM

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.

Avatar

08-18-02, 08:21 PM

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

John MacNeil

08-19-02, 10:24 AM

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.

BatM

08-19-02, 02:36 PM

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:

Nova1021

08-21-02, 09:48 PM

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

Avatar

08-21-02, 10:29 PM

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

John MacNeil

08-22-02, 04:40 PM

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.

Avatar

08-22-02, 04:45 PM

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?

Frencheneesz

08-22-02, 07:14 PM

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..

Avatar

08-22-02, 07:36 PM

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

Nova1021

08-22-02, 10:21 PM

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:

Clockwood

09-13-02, 12:06 AM

Frencheneesz

09-17-02, 11:31 PM

"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.

funky.junk

09-26-02, 11:47 AM

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...

funky.junk

09-26-02, 11:53 AM

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..

Sixdays

09-28-02, 07:36 PM

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.

wet1

09-29-02, 12:44 AM

Welcome to sciforums, Sixdays.

Clockwood

10-01-02, 10:56 PM

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..

funky.junk

10-02-02, 12:26 PM

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..

Sixdays

10-03-02, 10:11 PM

Fossils usually need sediment to form.

The flood of Noah would create the perfect environment for fossil formation.

Edufer

11-06-02, 11:06 PM

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 was too fast as to have "natural" causes. 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.

Frencheneesz

11-07-02, 11:07 PM

"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.

thed

11-08-02, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by Edufer
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.

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.

Edufer

11-11-02, 11:05 AM

Frencheneesz: ”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.”
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.”Something more intelligent is not "more evolved" than anything else. Everything on this planet most likely evolved from one single bacterium.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).
thed: ”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.”Of course, but it not detract the question that there could have been “gene tampering” by somebody in ancient times. Thed: ”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.”. 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 not as fast 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 “Ica stones”. 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.

p_ete2001

11-11-02, 11:15 AM

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

(Q)

11-11-02, 12:11 PM

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.

Delvinity

11-12-02, 01:37 AM

Evolution? Definitely.

Frencheneesz

11-12-02, 11:51 PM

"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.

Frencheneesz

11-12-02, 11:55 PM

"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.

p_ete2001

11-14-02, 07:00 PM

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.

CATT

12-23-02, 11:47 AM

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...

Asguard

12-23-02, 11:52 AM

what about the contamination threoy?

CATT

12-23-02, 04:39 PM

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...

seesaw

12-24-02, 01:51 AM

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. :)

ConsequentAtheist

01-10-03, 02:31 PM

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.

spuriousmonkey

01-13-03, 04:09 AM

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

notPresidentAndrew

01-15-03, 01:47 PM

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

spuriousmonkey

01-16-03, 05:21 AM

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?

ConsequentAtheist

01-18-03, 01:59 PM

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.

Redoubtable

01-18-03, 03:45 PM

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.

Redoubtable

01-18-03, 03:45 PM

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

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

six, not four

Redoubtable

01-18-03, 03:58 PM

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.

Frencheneesz

01-24-03, 06:21 PM

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).

radont84

04-07-04, 03:51 AM

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.

spuriousmonkey

04-07-04, 03:56 AM

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?

radont84

04-07-04, 04:11 AM

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.

spuriousmonkey

04-07-04, 04:19 AM

John Connellan

04-07-04, 06:21 AM

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!

John Connellan

04-07-04, 06:24 AM

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?

radont84

04-07-04, 08:31 AM

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...

spuriousmonkey

04-07-04, 08:35 AM

I'll make a short post for you:

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

radont84

04-07-04, 08:46 AM

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)

spuriousmonkey

04-07-04, 08:56 AM

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

spuriousmonkey

04-07-04, 09:01 AM

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)

radont84

04-07-04, 09:28 AM

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.

spuriousmonkey

04-07-04, 10:00 AM

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).

radont84

04-07-04, 10:18 AM

(Q)

04-07-04, 11:48 AM

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.

Neildo

04-07-04, 08:52 PM

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

spuriousmonkey

04-08-04, 03:52 AM

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?

Dr Lou Natic

04-08-04, 04:26 AM

I think radont should be banned.

HOWARDSTERN

04-08-04, 05:24 AM

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".

John Connellan

04-08-04, 05:32 AM

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!

HOWARDSTERN

04-08-04, 05:32 AM

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

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

HOWARDSTERN

04-08-04, 05:42 AM

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

Starthane Xyzth

04-08-04, 07:35 AM

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.

Starthane Xyzth

04-08-04, 08:02 AM

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.

Skylark

04-08-04, 09:53 AM

"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.

John Connellan

04-08-04, 11:39 AM

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

certified psycho

04-09-04, 12:25 AM

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

Dr Lou Natic

04-09-04, 12:49 AM

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.

wesmorris

04-09-04, 01:03 AM

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

certified psycho

04-09-04, 01:49 AM

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

Dr Lou Natic

04-09-04, 01:53 AM

Never!!!!!!!!!!

Idle Mind

04-09-04, 03:21 AM

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.

radont84

04-09-04, 04:24 AM

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.

Dr Lou Natic

04-09-04, 04:49 AM

radont84

04-09-04, 05:05 AM

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

spuriousmonkey

04-09-04, 07:10 AM

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.

radont84

04-09-04, 08:42 AM

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.)

spuriousmonkey

04-09-04, 09:12 AM

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)

radont84

04-09-04, 09:20 AM

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?

spuriousmonkey

04-09-04, 10:12 AM

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.

(Q)

04-09-04, 11:20 AM

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.

Starthane Xyzth

04-10-04, 08:18 AM

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.

DeeCee

04-10-04, 01:08 PM

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

laughing weasel

04-10-04, 01:10 PM

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.

jadedflower

04-10-04, 02:29 PM

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.

jadedflower

04-10-04, 02:34 PM

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.

invert_nexus

04-11-04, 12:54 PM

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

laughing weasel

04-11-04, 03:52 PM

Edufer

04-11-04, 04:12 PM

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.

Edufer

04-11-04, 04:40 PM

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.

laughing weasel

04-11-04, 05:31 PM

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.

Edufer

04-11-04, 06:03 PM

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".

Edufer

04-11-04, 06:13 PM

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?

Lemming3k

04-11-04, 06:14 PM

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.

laughing weasel

04-11-04, 06:31 PM

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.

guthrie

04-11-04, 07:25 PM

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?

spuriousmonkey

04-12-04, 06:42 AM

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.

radont84

04-13-04, 01:34 AM

bones have been dated older than 10000 years old

What dating methods were used to date these bones?

John Connellan

04-13-04, 06:17 AM

radont84

04-13-04, 07:49 AM

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.

John Connellan

04-13-04, 08:27 AM

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.

radont84

04-13-04, 08:32 AM

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

John Connellan

04-13-04, 08:44 AM

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.

radont84

04-13-04, 08:50 AM

You don't have any examples though?

John Connellan

04-13-04, 08:54 AM

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

radont84

04-13-04, 10:26 PM

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

Tristan

04-13-04, 11:05 PM

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.

Tristan

04-13-04, 11:15 PM

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

Tristan

04-13-04, 11:20 PM

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

Tristan

04-13-04, 11:21 PM

"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

invert_nexus

04-14-04, 12:10 AM

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.

SmilingMadness

04-14-04, 01:10 AM

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.

spuriousmonkey

04-14-04, 03:54 AM

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

radont84

04-14-04, 04:09 AM

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.

spuriousmonkey

04-14-04, 04:37 AM

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.

Dr Lou Natic

04-14-04, 05:05 AM

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 evolution you simply must be purposefully not trying to understand. Avoiding knowledge. You have to come to terms with the fact that you do not want to know the truth. So why ask questions?
Go and sit in a cupboard with your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed and die a happy faithfull christian.

John Connellan

04-14-04, 05:54 AM

About evolution and God... Evolution tells us how life came to be where it is, but it does not say why.

Science doesn't TRY to explain ultimate WHYs because they don't mean anything. Asking why is a common anthropogenic fault in our thinking where we presume things must exist or happen for an ultimate reason.

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??

How many people still believe the entire old testament anyway as fact? How many people believe the entire bible as fact?

spuriousmonkey

04-14-04, 07:49 AM

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??

You don't have to read it as an historical account to have a conflict with the bible.

The bible put man as the center of the universe.

Evolution shows humans are just another species of animal. Nothing special about them except a fairly large brain and some advanced state of consciousness.

The theory of evolution doesn't receive such a bad reception with religious people because it is an unsupported theory. It is probably the best supported scientific theory ever. They can't handle that they are mere animals and that there is no higher 'central' purpose in life (other than the one you fancy to give it yourself)

Starthane Xyzth

04-14-04, 08:58 AM

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.

It's a bit of a digression, perhaps, but many people who believe in evolution also seriously think that dinosaurs might have survived, here & there, into recent times. Other living fossils, creatures little changed over vast spans of time, are well documented: the most extreme case being a deep-ocean snail found near the Galapagos, virtually identical to fossils 500 million years old!

This goes to show that evolution should not be thought of as inevitable or inexorable. Once an organism is best optimised for its habitat and lifestyle, it need not change any further - as long as the habitat is stable.

If you're right about dinosaurs & humans being contemporary in pre-colonial Peru, Radont84, then I find the idea just as exciting as you. For a different reason. And it would be doubly tragic that those dinosaurs didn't last a few more centuries. :(

radont84

04-14-04, 09:08 AM

Ok, this will be my last post since almost everyone on this forum has been so brainwashed by evolution that they refuse to look at the facts. I KNOW I am right, I may not be able to prove it as well as some other scientists but there is evidence out there that proves there was a worldwide flood about 4400 years ago, I just can't explain it as well. I'm not mad because you THINK creation isn't true, I just don't want to see people go to hell because of what darwin did so long ago. He went to some islands and looked at birds and came to the conclusion that we all came from a rock over 3 million years ago and that somehow banana's and elephants are related. But, if you want to continue believing in evolution you just go right ahead and don't come crying to me when the world ends and you wind up in hell. If you want to know the truth, and I highly suggest you do if you don't want to burn for all eternity, go to www.drdino.com and download the seminars and watch them, they will convince you. With that I will take my leave of these forums and not return. Have a pleasant life.

Starthane Xyzth: If you want to learn more about dinosaurs still alive today, download seminar #3, it will tell you all about it.

Starthane Xyzth

04-14-04, 09:19 AM

Congratulations, everyone: it looks like you finally argued him to a standstill!

spuriousmonkey

04-14-04, 09:23 AM

Ok, this will be my last post since almost everyone on this forum has been so brainwashed by evolution that they refuse to look at the facts.

Biologists are brainwashed...

creationists are not...

Funny.

jadedflower

04-14-04, 10:16 AM

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.

My Theories?

Okay back it up... reeead what I wrote.

I said Can I Suggest You Read DARWIN?

It's HIS theories that are in question here.

Why do I believe what I believe?

Because personally, I don't think there is an all knowing, omnipresent, all powerfull being that from absolute nothing, suddenly decided that something must exist and then created it.
I don't believe that there is a higher purpose to be here.
I think, and this is my opinion, that the idea that this is possible is close to ridiculous.

I don't believe in witches, goblins, ogres, sprites or faries...

I certainly don't believe in ghosts... even if they are holy.
Don't ask me to explain Jesus. That was too long ago.

Creationism to me is sensless.

There may not be logic in everything... but it's more probable that the ghost story.

Tristan

04-15-04, 06:13 PM

Oh there is the classic, "Oh you are SO going to Hell for not believing in creationism". With Science, we persuade people with facts. With religion, there are no facts, so they persuade people with fear... like, "You are going to HELL you horrid person you... unless of course you believe in creationism."

What an ignorant person you are radont. Alot of people here are very open minded. And you are so closed minded, that you have to try to scare people into believing that you are right. That just destroyed any validity any of your statements had.

And btw, so what if there was a flood 4400 years ago? There was a flood last week somewhere... hell, it rained for 2 days straight over here. There have even been mass floods before that. Thats why we can find marine fossils on dry land (if you can even call that a flood).

Later
T
(P.S. Guess what? You might go to Hell for Giving UP! Run away a little more!)

Edufer

04-15-04, 06:25 PM

Leviticus

04-16-04, 06:31 AM

how the hell can you not believe evolution after all the proof and (obviously irrevalent) things have been brought up.

dam i hate these creationist scientists 'geezers', they talk what i call 'shit' and the day its true is the day hell freezes over but since there is NO HELL AS THERE IS NO HEAVEN thats not a problem

John Connellan

04-16-04, 06:49 AM

It is people like these narrow minded individuals that have actually helped me realise that there is no God, afterlife or great purpose so I praise then for showing me the light!

Leviticus

04-16-04, 06:59 AM

thats fair enough, but once they have shown the light can they not shut up and stay out of my way.? they have now decided to disrupt the american education system and have creationist science actually TAUGHT to pupils. i mean, people might actually believe them.
forget freemasonary, the church is subverting the very foundations of your life- your education! run for the hills?"!"?!

Starthane Xyzth

04-17-04, 08:14 AM

If Radont were arguing on the side of logic and sound evidence, I suppose he could do pretty well here. Perhaps he'll be back.

I think the title of this thread should have been: "Can Creationism be Substantiated?"

Edufer

04-17-04, 10:16 AM

There are some things that have not been mentioned or touched in this discussion, that would have ended it when it started, let me quote Stephen Jay Gould from his book, “Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes”:<dir>“Although no thinking person doubted the fact of evolution by 1909, Darwin's own theory about its mechanism – natural selection – was not at the height of popularity. Indeed, 19090 marked the acme of confusion about how evolution happened in the midst of complete confidence that it had occurred. An embattled group of strict Drawinians, led by the aging A.R. Wallace in England and by A. Weismann in Germany, continued to hold that virtually all evolutionary change occurred by the cumulative power of natural selection building adaptation step-by-step from the random raw material of small scale genetic variation.

Lamarckism remained strong and provided an alternative to natural selection for the gradual building of adaptations – creative organic response to perceived needs and the transmission of these favorable responses to offspring through the inheritance of acquired characters. Mendelian inheritance, when properly elucidated, tipped the scales in Darwin's favor, but in 1909, merely sown more confusion by adding yet a third mechanism to the swirling competition – production of new species all at once by large and fortuitous mutations.

By 1959, confusion hade ceded to the opposite undesired state of complacency. Strict Darwinism had triumphed. The flowering of Mendelian genetics had finally laid Lamarckism to rest since the workings of DNA provided no mechanism for an inheritance of acquired characters.” … “But random, small scale variation produces no changes by itself and requires a shaping force to preserve and enhance its favorable component.“
</dir>Later on in his book, Gould talks about Creationism, and says this:<dir>“Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A st of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.”

“The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters, Their brand of creationism, they claim, is ”scientific” because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper's argument must apply in both directions. One does not become a scientist by the simply act of trying to falsify a rival truly scientific system; one has to present an alternative system that also meet Popper's criterion – it too must be falsifiable in principle.

“Scientific Creationism” is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D., from his recent (1978) book, “Evolution? The Fossils Say No!”: “By creation we mean the bringing into being by a Supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for he used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics] This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.”

Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is “scientific” creationism?</dir>

spuriousmonkey

04-17-04, 12:33 PM

I think the title of this thread should have been: "Can Creationism be Substantiated?"

we have a thread on the merits of creationism (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33644)

HOWARDSTERN

07-10-04, 07:39 AM

Evolution is simply the logical progression of biological interactions of all living organisims within their ever changing environmental conditions, over the span of countless generations of adapting species within any given ecosystem.

Creationism (I'm not an atheist), is the belief that a superbeing(s) exist simply because a bunch of stupid goat herders were conned by a smarter group of lazy goat herders to donate a percentage of their goats milk so that a fear based book could be produced & later used to start the basis of taxation that continues to this day in all types and forms & is now called government.

http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/leaf.giffree the weed

vslayer

07-10-04, 12:33 PM

evolution is definitley true, whether or not ther was some allpowerful being that sparked the big bang or not is the hard part

Facial

07-10-04, 05:20 PM

Well, I kept away from this thread because I found radont84 a character very much like David Mayes (remember him, in global warming and karate threads?) with such a tunnel vision that lead him directly to obnoxiousness. I kept away from the discussion because you can't argue aganist religious beliefs using scientific facts.

But anyhow, radont84 was very funny, and his arguments really gave me moments of laughter. I will miss him, if for no other reason that comedians nowadays are not being too funny.

I know EXACTLY how you feel, since I know some people like that. I wish this forum wasn't so obnoxious sometimes, but then again I do like some entertainment. :)

You guys should read the Yellowstone Supervolcano thread, if things somehow seem too boring here without radont84.

Facial

07-10-04, 05:21 PM

Ahhh, behold the antics of the fundies!

ck27

07-21-04, 12:00 AM

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.)

Ok you seem to not know what your talking about. We have proof that the earth has never been completely flooded ever. If it ever did their would be sediment deposits everywhere. I was watching a show. It could downpour for 40 days and nights and all the ice caps could melt and it still woudn't be any where near enough to flood all the land. So your just a idiot.

Lemming3k

07-21-04, 08:34 AM

you really didnt need to prove him wrong, its been done already, besides he's left.

Starthane Xyzth

07-21-04, 10:53 AM

You sure? Maybe the guy is just lurking these days and looking for another topic in which he can raise his almighty contention.

Lemming3k

07-21-04, 03:38 PM

I'd hope for his sake he's learnt the error of his ways, and stopped watching jurassic park.

Enigma'07

07-21-04, 04:24 PM

Ok you seem to not know what your talking about. We have proof that the earth has never been completely flooded ever. If it ever did their would be sediment deposits everywhere. I was watching a show. It could downpour for 40 days and nights and all the ice caps could melt and it still woudn't be any where near enough to flood all the land.
What if sub-terrainian lakes caved in and there contents were pushed upwards. onto land?

Facial

07-21-04, 06:58 PM

You sure? Maybe the guy is just lurking these days and looking for another topic in which he can raise his almighty contention.

LOL. Hail, almighty Radont, let us hear your gospel once more !

Starthane Xyzth

07-22-04, 09:53 AM

I'd hope for his sake he's learnt the error of his ways, and stopped watching jurassic park.

Oh, come on. :bugeye: The Jurassic Park trilogy were good movies for their own sake, and showcases for groundbreaking animation. One just has to remember that it's not seriously possible to resurrect dinosaurs - especially not the way the movies depicted.

Not yet.

Lemming3k

07-22-04, 12:09 PM

Dont get me wrong its a good movie, and the follow ups werent bad, but he seems to have taken it seriously, perhaps he thought it was a documentary? Unless dinosaurs are still alive man has never walked with them, and i have yet to see a T-rex running around my back garden(not that it could do much running in my garden, more like step over it).

Hapsburg

10-30-05, 11:32 PM

I still beleive that the earth is less than 6500 years old.
:p :D

Roman

10-31-05, 01:07 AM

I believe in Evolution with all my heart.

valich

11-01-05, 01:09 AM

I believe in Evolution with all my heart.
How grand it is to know that someone believes in evolution so sincerely without posting an obnoxious reply! We should all bow to your kind sincerity.

Roman

11-01-05, 05:22 PM

Are you mocking me?

Ophiolite

11-01-05, 07:53 PM

I believe in Evolution with all my heart.Hmm. That would make it a faith based belief. I believe in it with all my brain. That seems a more scientific approach.

Roman

11-01-05, 08:04 PM

Yeah dude, my brain seems to be more skeptical of evolution than my heart. It just feels right, you know? But some of it doesn't think right. Like complex develops such as the eye and the lack of a whole bunch of inbetween organisms.

Oh well. Evolution's the best explanation thus far.

Clockwood

11-01-05, 08:27 PM

Ummm... Roman. Every creature is an 'inbetween organism' according to the theory.

Roman

11-02-05, 05:34 PM

I mean in the fossil record. How come there's only one archeoptyrx? The layer cake of paleontological digs and all that. No half forms, few in between stages.

valich

11-02-05, 09:54 PM

Are you mocking me?
Roman. Please! I say what I mean and I mean what I say. Honestly! I whole heartedly agreeing with what you have been saying so far. Please consider it as a compliment and in no way a mockery!

All nine of our ptorosaurs come from the same limestone quarries as the famous Archeoptyrx bird fossils came from. 150 million years ago southwestern Europe was mostly tropical coral reefs, with small colonies of life on many of the islands. Flying vertebrates such as early birds and pterosaurs were, however, free to travel from island to island. Occasionally one would die over the ocean and sink to the bottom where it lay until buried.http://www.finishingfirst.com/Dino/set.html#Arch

All nine of our ptorosaurs come from the same limestone quarries as the famous Archeoptyrx bird fossils came from. 150 million years ago southwestern Europe was mostly tropical coral reefs, with small colonies of life on many of the islands. Flying vertebrates such as early birds and pterosaurs were, however, free to travel from island to island. Occasionally one would die over the ocean and sink to the bottom where it lay until buried. The annoxic bottom layer prevents decay or skeletal disturbance. The origin of the sediment is volcanic dust, which allows for the extraordinary detail of all of the Solnhofen limestone specimens.http://www.finishingfirst.com/Dino/set.html

Apparently, we now have proof that some species of dinosaurs could fly.

valich

11-02-05, 10:02 PM

I mean in the fossil record. How come there's only one archeoptyrx? The layer cake of paleontological digs and all that. No half forms, few in between stages.The media always clambers when they hear about about a so-called "missing link." They are rare. It is estimated that if every person in North America were to die today, there would only be two or three fossils left of all these millions of diverse people. How could we account for the differences between ethnicity? Black, yellow, white, and in-between would all be missing links.

Roman

11-04-05, 04:56 PM

I was unaware that fossilization was so rare.

protostar

11-04-05, 05:50 PM

Since the earth is an accumulation of meteorites and mini planets,
the meteorites and mini planets are made from material from the sun
or the "star nursery" and the moon is a mini planet that collided w/ earth
billions of years ago then spun out to orbit to become our moon,
and a comet flew down and hit the earth and it contained water
I'd have to say that is pretty amazing and light, where did light
come from. anyhoo my point is there has to be an energy point
somewhere to create all of this and yeah, he is a GOD.
GOD, (insert your god here).
proto

Avatar

11-04-05, 05:57 PM

That's a flaw of human mindwork - humans think that everything that exists must have been created and created by some being, because all human creation is created by humans.
To automatically stretch this to universal scales... :rolleyes:
There is no need for a creator, get over it.

protostar

11-05-05, 09:56 PM

why? why is that not right? Since homoerectus became homosapien's
and spread out throughout europe and beyond, through thousands of years they gained knowledge, art, "religion" and so on.. why couldn't the "hand of god" create this; it just took, millions of years! As they spread, different melatonin levels and the sun "created" the different races. This is amazing.
how could "nature" become "aware" without DEVINE INTERVENTION?

Roman

11-05-05, 10:08 PM

Heheh, I got something the "hand of god" can "divinely intervene."

How does the idea of god even make sense? He has hands and a head? Does he walk upright, or do his knuckles drag?

protostar

11-05-05, 10:19 PM

god is of the Spirit Being silly.
Homoerectus didn't have much feelings over death, not
until homosapiens evolved. Then the awareness of their
spiritual being came to be. When you realize you have
a spirit, and your not just a bag of bones walking around
you become spiritual and have (feeling) weather you like it or not.
and that is devine intervention.

Xylene

11-06-05, 12:03 AM

Roman

11-06-05, 12:55 AM

Homoerectus didn't have much feelings over death

Everything's got feelings over death. People just happen to be able to worry real loud about it.

madanthonywayne

11-06-05, 01:10 AM

Perhaps--just to really piss off the Creationists and I.D.er's--God has become a transcendant being, i.e. moved beyond the need for a body, and is a universal mind. As such, God would be the ultimate expression of evolution. :p
There was a story by Ben Bova with this as it's premise. God turned out to be our super evolved selves. The 'gods' in the story even took the step of saving the "souls" of every human who ever lived through a process of uploading their consciousness at the time of death. A process that was percieved as traveling down a tunnel towards a light. Anyway, the story was called Orion.

protostar

11-06-05, 01:40 PM

I'm with Xylene on that one. A Transcendent being. Exactly!
I just read an interesting article on the tulmuth (ancient scrolls)
which is the bible written by yet another person. possibly *judas*
Anyhow, they discuss basically the bible page for page but add "superior beings"to the bible legends.

Avatar

11-06-05, 01:49 PM

I don't blame you though, it's just a trait of an undeveloped human brain that has hard time to think on levels and of concepts not based on the classic human perception of the world.

Though consider that your logic may be flawed, because it applies the logical rules governing the human created environment to the environment of the cosmos.

No god is needed for complexity to evolve. An extraordinary complexity can evolve from quite simple rules of nature. Have you ever played "The game of Life"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

---
Avatar outa here

valich

11-06-05, 11:09 PM

Perhaps--just to really piss off the Creationists and I.D.er's--God has become a transcendant being, i.e. moved beyond the need for a body, and is a universal mind. As such, God would be the ultimate expression of evolution. :pThe argument as to whether god exists or not belongs on the "Religion" subject forum, not on "Earth Science."

Your statement would create quite a commotion there because you are now stating that God has changed: that he/she is going from "beyond the need for a body, and is a [only now a] universal mind."

If you continue to dwell on the subject on this thread, you're going way off the subject. But, if you post a new thread under the "Reiligious" category using this assumption, your going to get a lot more progress for your posting.

Pi-Sudoku

11-07-05, 12:11 PM

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

what about Bose-Einstein

protostar

11-07-05, 02:48 PM

man, you people need to relax. God does tie into this particular thread
weather you are a believer or not is your perogitive. anyone can state
any belief they have weather you like it or not.

valich

11-07-05, 07:45 PM

Xylene

11-07-05, 09:19 PM

God is Dead! There is no place for belief in God or even a belief in a spiritual force to explain Nature anymore. That hypothetical belief only complicates scientific explanations and serves as a crutch for people to fall back on for what has yet to be explained.

The problem is, valich, when people start threads with titles like "Do You Believe in Evolution", aren't you immediately going to get people applying religious logic (or illogic) to the argument? It's unavoidable, really.

valich

11-07-05, 09:45 PM

Througout this entire extremely long forum the subject has never been brought up: the answer is "no"! The above repy was the first. Are you trying to make it into a problem and thus close the thread? This issue belongs on a different category forum: not here. It is not a subject of evolution, it is a subject of creationism.

Frisbinator

11-07-05, 09:51 PM

God is Dead! There is no place for belief in God or even a belief in a spiritual force to explain Nature anymore. That hypothetical belief only complicates scientific explanations and serves as a crutch for people to fall back on for what has yet to be explained.

This is ridiculous, how could you or anyone else know that God is dead? The very definition of what God is negates the fact that you would know if he was dead or not, or if he even could die.

invert_nexus

11-07-05, 09:54 PM

Trust me, there are things that "the scientific method" can't prove.

Don't have to trust you. It's been shown long ago that the scientific method is incapable of proving anything. Knowledge can never be entirely justified. Science works through falsification.

No matter how much evidence you gather for a scientific concept, you can never be guaranteed that a future experiment can invalidate the whole thing.

The problem is infinity. We can never run through an infinite number of tests. And we can never be sure if there isn't more tests that can be performed.

valich

11-07-05, 10:38 PM

So you don't believe in a scientific method: first ask questions, then form a hyporthesis, then test that hypothesis, then make a conclusion or results, then let others test that hypothesis to see if it holds up, then form a theory. Then a law that holds under all currently known physical conditions?

And your better alternative is: Magic? Spontaneous thoughts? Inthoughout dreams? Hearsay? Rumors? Religious beliefs? Mythology?

valich

11-07-05, 10:44 PM

This is ridiculous, how could you or anyone else know that God is dead? The very definition of what God is negates the fact that you would know if he was dead or not, or if he even could die.By the exact same reasoning, how could you or anyone else know that there is a god? Or Santa Clausa? Or a munchkin? Or the tooth fairy? I was taught they they all existed? No difference.

invert_nexus

11-07-05, 10:44 PM

So you don't believe in a scientific method:

Did I ever say that?
Ha!
I'm not at all surprised that you don't understand the scientific method.

first ask questions, then form a hyporthesis, then test that hypothesis, then make a conclusion or results, then let others test that hypothesis to see if it holds up, then form a theory. Then a law that holds under all currently known physical conditions?

And at what point does this theory became proved?
It never does, Valich.
It always awaits just one more experiment that can topple straight the fuck over.

Ever heard of the problem of induction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction)?
Ever read any Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)? Or Deutsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deutsch)?

Someone with five degrees should understand the nature of science, Valich. You've just shown that you don't. (Of course, nobody believes you have one degree let alone five. Maybe underwater basket weaving.)

Edit:
Muaha!
Seriously.
I'm getting some really good laughs out of this.
You don't realize just how much of an idiot you've again shown yourself to be.
Scientific method.
You're such a tool.

valich

11-07-05, 10:58 PM

[QUOTE=invert_nexus]Did I ever say that?
Ha!
I'm not at all surprised that you don't understand the scientific method.

It always awaits just one more experiment that can topple straight the fuck over.
QUOTE]There's no reason to repost all of what you said, but resulting to vulgarity again - proof in itself that you can't remain unemotionally detached and subjective and have to resort to anger and hostility (hardly scientific - with or without the use of a scientific method) - just a waste of everyone's time!

Now I've got experiments going on in the lab with controls. What other alternative do you suggest that I use than the scientific method to discover a common regularity and possibly an eventual truth in Nature or a law?

spuriousmonkey

11-07-05, 11:03 PM

Now I've got experiments going on in the lab with controls. What other alternative do you suggest that I use than the scientific method to discover a common regularity and possibly an eventual truth in Nature or a law?

postive controls? Negative controls?

common regularity is not discovered by experiment. It is an observation. You test the observation by means of experiment. If possible.

The 'truth' doesn't exist. It is constantly changing.

invert_nexus

11-07-05, 11:04 PM

Oh. Yes. I've resorted to *gasp* vulgarity. Thus you don't have to actually respond to anything I've said. Let alone *gasp* read it.

Earth to douche bag.
I didn't say that the scientific method is invalid. I said that the scientific method doesn't 'prove' anything.
You stupid fucking ass.
Did you read the links?
OF course not. I've resorted to vulgarity.
You're such a fucking buffoon, Valich.

"One time I looked at my asshole in the mirror. It blew my fucking mind!"

And. We all know you're lying about your 'lab' and all that shit. You are far too ignorant to be allowed anywhere near a laboratory. Maybe as a janitor, but I bet you'd try fucking with shit and would get fired for blowing something up.

And. Again.
And. Again,.
And AGAIN.
VULGARITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE OR THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. A SCIENTIST CAN BE VULGAR WITHOUT INVALIDATING HIS RESEARCH.

You fucking pussy.
I'm so done with you.

Suffice it to say that you've seriously shown how ignorant you are with your failure to understand the scientific method and the validation of knowledge.
Bye.

mountainhare

11-08-05, 12:31 AM

It's amazing how such simple concepts can confuse some people, isn't it? As in science is not about absolutes. Science operates on a probabilistic scale. The more evidence we gather in favour of a theory, the more sure we can be that it is correct. However, we can never say for sure that tomorrow a new piece of evidence will be produced that will invalidate/modify the theory.

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol...

Science is a search for the most reasonable explaination.

protostar

11-08-05, 07:37 PM

Scientists are practicing anyway. I think the truth is, we are all connected by the light of our souls. We are of the "one" whatever/whomever that may be. Its more spiritual than religous. Naturally we evolved and grew and are still evolving and growing. We all have one thing in common. We are all made up of electrons,neutrons and protons, 6 of each to make us. Humans.
heh. #666 ironic isn't it? anyhoo, maybe we'll all evolve to read each others minds! Then I won't have to ask him to hand me the "clicker" hehe

valich

11-08-05, 11:12 PM

invert_nexus

11-08-05, 11:20 PM

GET A LIFE!!!!

So. Have you looked into the scientific method and the justification of knowledge yet? If you have, I already know you won't acknowledge your mistake.

valich

11-08-05, 11:56 PM

i"ve explained to you the details of the scientific method numerous times yet even yesterday you just denied the validity of it. What are you talking about?

mountainhare

11-09-05, 02:47 AM

valich:

i"ve explained to you the details of the scientific method numerous times yet even yesterday you just denied the validity of it.

Nexus doesn't need me to speak in his defense, but I am stunned by how you continue to distort what Nexus is saying. NEXUS DID NOT DENY THE VALIDITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD!!!

He claimed that the scientific method was incapable of proving anything, and he is correct. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol, theology and logic. Science is about amassing evidence, forming hypothesis, analysing data, performing experiments, making inferences from the evidence and experiments, and then finding the most reasonable explaination which explains the evidence and the results of your experiments.

Ophiolite

11-09-05, 05:57 AM

And Vallich, will you stop already with the simplistic, to the point of being wrong, hypothethis --> theory ---> law sequence. We've pointed out the error of this several times, but once again you refuse to listen, your little weasel head hid so far up your anus you must have a detailed understanding of your own anatomy.
People who behave as you do make me seriously question whether internet search engines are such a good idea after all.

CANGAS

11-09-05, 10:54 PM

protostar

11-10-05, 09:42 AM

How about this:

Know in self, first this: Thou art body, mind and soul, a three-dimensional individual in a three-dimensional consciousness. Hence ye find the Godhead, to a consciousness of an individual in the earth plane, is three dimensions: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each are individual, and yet they are one. So with the body-consciousness: the body, the mind and the soul. Each have their attributes, each have their limitations, save the soul. Nothing may separate the soul from its source save the will of self.

ancient text. We are all connected together and connected to the one.
this is a profound part of evolution.

spuriousmonkey

11-10-05, 10:54 AM

If evolution is true, WHY ARE ALL THE MISSING LINKS STILL MISSING?

Because missing links are regularly found.

stupidgirl

11-10-05, 10:38 PM

WHY DOESN'T SOMEBODY MAKE A RIGGED POLL SOMETIME?

How about: "God made the universe AND it is very old"?

If evolution is true, WHY ARE ALL THE MISSING LINKS STILL MISSING?

And why can all the bones that prove ( ! ) human evolution be placed on a pool table with plenty of room to spare?

Yeah, didn't you know? All the evidence on earth that points toward evolution being true was put here so God could trick the unfaithful into going to Hell. Personally, I think its because the only smart guy in Heaven was Lucifer, and look what happened there! So its not really about faith. God just doesn't want any smart people in Heaven.

hehehe

I guess I'll be burning in Hell then... along with the greatest geniuses in human history and the missing links too. :) Sounds like a party to me!

(Q)

11-11-05, 11:32 AM

You're not stupid, girl. :)

Zephyr

11-11-05, 12:40 PM

It's discomforting to see people talking about believing in evolution or the scientific method, since these are conceptual tools rather than idols.

stupidgirl

11-11-05, 03:25 PM

It's discomforting to see people talking about believing in evolution or the scientific method, since these are conceptual tools rather than idols.

Yes, just like God is.

Now if only more people understood all of that. Everyone seems to need to be absolute in their beliefs. What is wrong with having a sound theory but not being sure? There are so many things we refuse to see, and so many things beyond that which we actually can't see. How dare we insist on stating so many things as fact and make the arrogant asumption that we really know what is going on, the rest be damned?

A recent CBS News poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm) came up with some disturbing results. (has anyone posted this yet? Sorry if you've seen it.)

When asked, "Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin of human beings?
(1) Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process.
(2) Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process.
(3) God created human beings in their present form."

51% said God created human beings in their present form. 30% said guided by God. 12% said not directly guided by God.

When asked, "Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin of human beings?
(1) Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process.
(2) Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process.
(3) God created human beings in their present form within the last ten thousand years."

Guess what? A vast majority of 48% chose #3. God created humans in this form in the last 10,000 years!

I suppose I shouldn't have been shocked, but I was. Its disheartening to me how primative we still are.

wesmorris

11-11-05, 03:43 PM

?

Consider the amount of time humans have dwelled on the planet in terms of the history of the earth..

Really it's pretty advanced IMO. Certainly the details of the typical beleif are easily seen as BS from a position of scrutiny, but consider the discipline and order provided by such concepts. I think Thomas Jefferson was an agnostic who believed as I think is wise, something like "without god, the masses have no conscience" (very poorly paraphrased). I think god, however stupid at face value - is a very powerful, sophisticated meme that has done more good for humanity than bad. There is certainly plenty of either to go around, but I'm looking at it in terms of sheer survival and ability to flourish. Check out Good God (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49907) if you're interested.

(and welcome to the fray BTW :) )

stupidgirl

11-11-05, 07:41 PM

?
(and welcome to the fray BTW :) )

Thank you very much!

I do agree with a lot of what you said. I just look around at our other achievements and can't quite understand how we can't get free of the God crutch just yet. Religious values are just very simplified versions of common sense advice. Don't sleep around because people who do tend to catch something awful. Don't kill or steal because others don't like people who do that and you'll end up with your head on a pike. Don't lie because catching a liar causes paranoia among the masses and we all know what humans do when paranoid... we end up with heads on pikes again. Jews not eating pork, makes sense, people were getting sick.

But aren't we at a point yet that we can peel away the fantasy from the logic and open a "church" of common sense? Where people who enjoy socializing with people of like minded values can get together to persue prosperity? I guess technically we can (hehe actually I've been wanting to start one for some time. I wanted to call it The People's Fellowship of Good Will and Better Popcorn :D hehe). I would love to see the majority come away from the hysteria of religion.

And then there's the whole God gene thing. A predisposition to this kind of behavior could have been a very necessary part of our evolution, critical to our survival. Which is fine. I'm a rehabilitated "believer" of some pretty extreme things myself. The question is, do we still need it? When will we grow out of it? Because for me, for productivity, relationships, morality, and general prosperity, religion-free logic and objectivity has been a "God send" :)

wesmorris

11-11-05, 10:07 PM

vip

11-12-05, 03:11 PM

Very interesting posts - thoughts and pattern of behavoiur of HUMANS running scared. It all boils down to the human ego - cannot live with the idea of fellow human being better let alone a " Superintelligent force" being superior then MAN. If regilious values are just simplified versions of common sense advice, how come over 80% of the human population is incapable of taking heed of this advice - considering it is a SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF COMMON SENSE ADVICE.
Look in the mirror and ask your self how am I ?
Thank you very much!

I do agree with a lot of what you said. I just look around at our other achievements and can't quite understand how we can't get free of the God crutch just yet. Religious values are just very simplified versions of common sense advice. Don't sleep around because people who do tend to catch something awful. Don't kill or steal because others don't like people who do that and you'll end up with your head on a pike. Don't lie because catching a liar causes paranoia among the masses and we all know what humans do when paranoid... we end up with heads on pikes again. Jews not eating pork, makes sense, people were getting sick.

But aren't we at a point yet that we can peel away the fantasy from the logic and open a "church" of common sense? Where people who enjoy socializing with people of like minded values can get together to persue prosperity? I guess technically we can (hehe actually I've been wanting to start one for some time. I wanted to call it The People's Fellowship of Good Will and Better Popcorn :D hehe). I would love to see the majority come away from the hysteria of religion.

And then there's the whole God gene thing. A predisposition to this kind of behavior could have been a very necessary part of our evolution, critical to our survival. Which is fine. I'm a rehabilitated "believer" of some pretty extreme things myself. The question is, do we still need it? When will we grow out of it? Because for me, for productivity, relationships, morality, and general prosperity, religion-free logic and objectivity has been a "God send" :)

wesmorris

11-12-05, 04:28 PM

Very interesting posts - thoughts and pattern of behavoiur of HUMANS running scared.

Oh? Can you demonstrate it for real, or is this all you have:

It all boils down to the human ego - cannot live with the idea of fellow human being better let alone a " Superintelligent force" being superior then MAN.

How egotistical is it to make such a statement of ignorance? Quite I think.

If regilious values are just simplified versions of common sense advice, how come over 80% of the human population is incapable of taking heed of this advice - considering it is a SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF COMMON SENSE ADVICE.

You ask and then tell in the same sentence, while getting your stats all wrong in between? At least 80% of the human population claim to believe in what you ask and then tell is a "simplified version of common sense" - at least a religion of some sort. Perhaps you're speaking of a particular religion that only consists of 20% of the world?

Look in the mirror and ask your self how am I ?

I'm a complicated ape, like the rest of us. You?

Xylene

11-12-05, 04:28 PM

kmguru

11-12-05, 04:40 PM

valich

11-14-05, 10:33 PM

Do You Believe In Evolution?

No I do not. Our monkey genes were tampered by energy beings that were part of the creation process and hence the intelligent design. What else could it be? :D

Once we open up this kind of reasoning we will have several million stories to our origin - all speculation of course.

Then again who is to say, that did not happen?

As Rig Veda says: Who knows how the creation began?
If you do not believe in evolution, then you can simply repeat Mendel's expirements in your bedroom. Take many different distinct type of pea plants: round, wrinkled, yellow, green, tall, short, and differences in flower colors. At first you breed them individually together and you see no change, Then you mix the together and they evolve into new forms. You can do this with animals too, as we have done with dogs, pigs, cows, and horses for thousands of years.

stupidgirl

11-15-05, 11:34 AM

Because we're all a bunch of raving idiots at heart, and our minds haven't come out of the caves yet? :D
LOL Bingo! :)

stupidgirl

11-17-05, 01:41 PM

You're welcome very much.

Oh, remember - logic is only as valid as its inputs and execution.

Hehe... you should have been around for The taoist trap (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47902). You might get a kick out of perusing it.

I took a look at the thread you suggested. Entertaining. I grew up steeped in philosophy so I try to avoid it at all costs these days. I do agree though, human interpretation (or sometimes the lack) can muddle up reality pretty good. There's gotta be a way around it though, or at least a better effort to clear it up. Blaming everything on an invisible man just feels like we're not even TRYING. Maybe if we settled on an SOP for interpreting our input... hehe That sounds so cold. I swear I'm a warm person, really.

Russ723

11-17-05, 02:03 PM

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.

I was always amused by people who say change via genetic mutation/selection is BS, then go right back to breeding their champion Chihuahuas. :confused:

Don't you love proving an argument to be invalid, only to have to explain why you won ?

My countrymen are embarassing me.

kmguru

11-17-05, 06:02 PM

If you do not believe in evolution, then you can simply repeat Mendel's expirements in your bedroom. Take many different distinct type of pea plants: round, wrinkled, yellow, green, tall, short, and differences in flower colors. At first you breed them individually together and you see no change, Then you mix the together and they evolve into new forms. You can do this with animals too, as we have done with dogs, pigs, cows, and horses for thousands of years.

First, my answer was a satire...but...

Are you telling me that the peas will turn into green apples in a few years? I am yet to see a human screwing a monkey to produce a monkeyman or the sheepherders having their way with the sheeps producing who knows what....

The point is, just because the DNA is similar does not mean they are automatic without any conscious intervention designed from whence. Just because, we have a modern car from the Model T does not mean, that the Model T after many years becomes Lincoln Town Car.

Is not it possible that if nature can produce humans who have the mastery over the physical laws and manipulate their environment, so it can produce yet unknown forms of intelligence who manipulated the Earth environment?

And are the mutations accidental or obeys some yet unknown laws? And how is that accident or randomness creates the most sophisticated automated control system to control the chemical processes in the body even in rats that we have difficulty duplicating in industrial complexes, without sophisticated computers?

Evolution has so many holes that even evolutionists are asking "what else could it be"...why not search what other possibilities are with the new knowledge we have gathered since?

It may turn out that the whole Universe has a DNA that grows from a primary equation and could answer our human origin....rather than figuring our the process in the middle (like trying to answer the existence of a plant without a seed) then the question comes...where did that seed come from....?

spuriousmonkey

11-17-05, 06:27 PM

guthrie

11-20-05, 12:30 PM

But as you are well aware, you dont need to believe in evolution for it to work righ tin front of your eyes. (or microscope)

guthrie

11-20-05, 12:34 PM

Is not it possible that if nature can produce humans who have the mastery over the physical laws and manipulate their environment, so it can produce yet unknown forms of intelligence who manipulated the Earth environment?

And are the mutations accidental or obeys some yet unknown laws? And how is that accident or randomness creates the most sophisticated automated control system to control the chemical processes in the body even in rats that we have difficulty duplicating in industrial complexes, without sophisticated computers?....?
One source to answer all your questions:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Read it.

Evolution has so many holes that even evolutionists are asking "what else could it be"...why not search what other possibilities are with the new knowledge we have gathered since?....?
Because Evolutionary theory doesnt have that many holes. And moreover, theres plenty of people willing to say that its junk, most noticeably the intelligent design proponents. But none of them want to spend money on actual scientific experiments to search for new possibilities. How do you explain that?

It may turn out that the whole Universe has a DNA that grows from a primary equation and could answer our human origin....rather than figuring our the process in the middle (like trying to answer the existence of a plant without a seed) then the question comes...where did that seed come from.
Pardon? How woudl you detect this DNA? What equation? Then what do you have to suggest apart from Big bang theory?

spuriousmonkey

11-20-05, 12:41 PM

But as you are well aware, you dont need to believe in evolution for it to work righ tin front of your eyes. (or microscope)

Yes, I was trying to make the point that the evidence has always been right in front of us. But that doesn't mean evolution was always obvious, as was maybe inferred by the previous poster. Mendel was interested in studying the Lord's work. The same was the case for for instance Newton.

Mendel was what they call 'rediscovered'. Did mendel really have a clue about the significance on what he was doing? No, that is why his work needed to be 'rediscovered'.

Interestingly if mendel had worked on different plants he could have easily not have discovered his mendelian laws of inheritance. If you would like to call him like that.

guthrie

11-20-05, 05:50 PM

Fair enough. I do recall reading that if he had studied something else he wouldnt have found anything interesting, but I cant remember what plant it was.
It is also perhaps a good example of why communication is important in scientific discoveries.

valich

11-21-05, 06:10 PM

First, my answer was a satire...but...

Are you telling me that the peas will turn into green apples in a few years? I am yet to see a human screwing a monkey to produce a monkeyman or the sheepherders having their way with the sheeps producing who knows what....

The point is, just because the DNA is similar does not mean they are automatic without any conscious intervention designed from whence. Just because, we have a modern car from the Model T does not mean, that the Model T after many years becomes Lincoln Town Car.

Is not it possible that if nature can produce humans who have the mastery over the physical laws and manipulate their environment, so it can produce yet unknown forms of intelligence who manipulated the Earth environment?

And are the mutations accidental or obeys some yet unknown laws? And how is that accident or randomness creates the most sophisticated automated control system to control the chemical processes in the body even in rats that we have difficulty duplicating in industrial complexes, without sophisticated computers?

Evolution has so many holes that even evolutionists are asking "what else could it be"...why not search what other possibilities are with the new knowledge we have gathered since?

It may turn out that the whole Universe has a DNA that grows from a primary equation and could answer our human origin....rather than figuring our the process in the middle (like trying to answer the existence of a plant without a seed) then the question comes...where did that seed come from....?Yes I am, but not in "a few years." Give peas about 2 billion years and see where they go - far beyond apples and oranges! Heck we can breed a donkey and a horse in our backyard to get a mule: an entirely new hybrid species - and then? What else do you need to see? And then when you see that, I'll have to ask the same question again? And again? And again? Until your holes become equally smaller, and smaller, and smaller, until no one, except you perhaps?, would be able to see them anymore.

It is estimated that if every person in the United States were suddenly all annihilated, there would only be three fossils left to prove that we ever existed: and good luck finding those three fossils in a haystack, let alone all the other ancestrial paleontological fossils that we haven't found yet.

You can't see this?

valich

11-21-05, 06:26 PM

Mendel didn't believe in evolution.Mendel is considered the father of genetics because he was the first to understand crossbreeding and the evolutionary effects that it had on future generations. In Mendel's day the concept off evolution was thought of in terms of the "Laws of Inheritance," which was later disproven in its strict sense, but proven by Mendel. Mendel's discoveries proved his "law of segregation" in inheritance (a.k.a Punnet's Square), then his law of dihybrid crosses through independently assorted alleles, dominant inheritance. In those days they did not talk about evolution as we are able to talk about it today, but he believed in the inherited change of organisms that created a new type, thus "evolution" as we know what the word means today..

TheAlphaWolf

11-23-05, 07:34 PM

No I do not. Our monkey genes were tampered by energy beings that were part of the creation process and hence the intelligent design. What else could it be?

Nah, The devil was the intelligence that tampered with the creation process. That is why we live such puny little lives full of pain, suffering, and wars. That's why we have randomly put things in us, such as erector pili (muscles that give us goosebumps), the appendix, etc. That's why our memories are horrible, why genes make us want to be fat, that's why it's in our nature (species as a whole) to be ruthles to the "outgroup", to supress people, etc. It's all evidence for an evil intelligence designing us. I blame the devil.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, I accept evolution. It's not really a matter of belief, it's about knowing the facts and HAVING to accept them and the logical conclusion they point to. It's not reality's job to satisfy our egos.

kmguru

11-23-05, 08:04 PM

You can't see this?

It may turn out that the whole Universe has a DNA that grows from a primary equation and could answer our human origin....rather than figuring out the process in the middle (like trying to answer the existence of a plant without a seed) then the question comes...where did that seed come from....?

Can you see this?

kmguru

11-23-05, 08:12 PM

It's not really a matter of belief, it's about knowing the facts and HAVING to accept them and the logical conclusion they point to. It's not reality's job to satisfy our egos.

That is very nice. What exactly are the facts? How long ago we became humans with intelligence to use fire and tools to hunt? Were there only one group of monkeys or three? Why there are hundreds of type of butterflies or dogs or fishes or snakes and only a single type of humans?

TheAlphaWolf

11-23-05, 10:19 PM

What exactly are the facts?
well, of course I can't possibly list them all. From nested higherarchies to geographical distribution, fossils (includes transitional fossils), homologous structures, analogous structures, and vestigial structures, to the fact natural selection has been observed, and that even SPECIATION (macroevolution... a population of one species turning into another) has been observed.
How long ago we became humans with intelligence to use fire and tools to hunt?
I must say I'm not very familiar with human evolution, but I do know some things. the process of getting intelligence to uste fire and tools to hunt happened in gradual steps. There's no single time when hominids started using both tools, tools to hunt, fire, etc. First it started out with simple tools, like using a stone to shatter bone so the bone marrow could be eaten. Then it went to sharpening those stones to make them more efficient, then to using them to kill, then adding a stick to the end (like an ax type of thing), etc. So in short, there's no way to say. Humans aren't the only ones to use tools either. There are ravens, chimps, finches, etc. that also use simple tools.
Were there only one group of monkeys or three?
well, all hominids (including modern humans) are apes, NOT monkeys, and there have been quite a few lines of hominids (homo erectus, neandarthals, the hobbit, etc). All but one survived, and that's because of various reasons... I think neandarthals were outcompeted by modern humans right?
Why there are hundreds of type of butterflies or dogs or fishes or snakes and only a single type of humans?

first of all, you're totally misrepresenting it. "butterflies" isn't just one group of organism, it's an... order? (domestic) dogs are all the same species, etc. If you want to compare them, you have to say that there are many kinds of butterflies, dogs, fish, snakes, and primates (which includes humans). There are also a couple of species of apes (which also includes humans)
as for why there is only one species of human... for a lot of reasons. We are relative newcomers to earth, and we breed relatively slowly (compared to butterflies, dogs, fish, and snakes). The faster you reproduce the faster you can usually evolve. The other species of human were also killed off for various reasons... diseases, climate changes like ice ages and supervolcanoes erupting, and even other humans. If you hadn't noticed, humans are very aggressive even within the same species. Other humans were probably killed off by modern humans.

TheAlphaWolf

11-23-05, 10:24 PM

It may turn out that the whole Universe has a DNA that grows from a primary equation and could answer our human origin....rather than figuring out the process in the middle (like trying to answer the existence of a plant without a seed) then the question comes...where did that seed come from....?

Can you see this?
no. can you elaborate? I don't understand...
just FYI, there are plants that don't reproduce with seeds but with spores, or that reproduce asexually.
speaking of plants and sexual reproduction, did you know that dandelion flowers are useless? they serve no function. You can't pollinate a dandelion flower because it's infertile. Completely utterly useless.

kmguru

11-24-05, 05:30 PM

to the fact natural selection has been observed

So is the intelligent design...here I am being the devil's advocate...the fact that religion evolved and practiced by ~80% of the world's population that tend to believe in intelligent design...can itself be considered as the observational facts.

The ID people feel that while there is a relation between the primates and humans in DNA, and brain mechanics...the conclusion can not be drawn that one fine morning the primate became a human. People have been searching for that missing link for a long time and there has been no such thing...even between specis. To turn on or off a single gene in a human body takes a lot of knowledge and laboratory equipment. Now changing say 1000 genes so that a female primate will give birth to a human type, without rejecting the fetus, is really out of this world. If that is true, we should find the enzyme that is responsible for such process and use it in transplanting biological organs. And I am sure scientists have artificially inseminated human sperm in primates with no results...unless you consider a whole cross specis are in Timbuktu running their empire....:D

According to latest science, humans have been on the Earth scene for only 100,000 years. That is too small a time for nature to experiment turning on and off the gene sequences and make it compatible with the mother primate to create a viable off spring. Turning a 1000 genes just right in such a small period is not possible. Now if you say we have been here for the last 200 million years and therefore the first 50 million years, nature tinkered with the genes and that we can find the half breeds which lasted 100,000 years each...then I can understand the progression...

I am trying to give you an alternate scenario between classical Adam and Eve story and the primate giving birth to a human.

Notice, you could not pin down, exactly what the time frame is for a human to be present on this planet. It is faily established that plant life arrived about 750 million years ago. It takes a long time like a million years or so, for a specis to establish themselves. It takes 60 million years for the dinosaur to become a crocodile...specifically when there is a stress in the environment.

There has been practically no changes in the human brain in the last 4000 years - so, if we can establish exactly when the primates got their higher functions of the brain and invented fire...that will go a long way in establishing your claim.

There is no such thing as people invented fire gradually...either you did one day or you did not...it is like saying, she got pregnant gradually over 5 years...:D

mountainhare

11-24-05, 06:37 PM

kmguru, you have to be kidding. Is your post a parody, or are you being dead to rights serious?

kmguru

11-24-05, 06:47 PM

Just having some fun....:D

mountainhare

11-24-05, 07:43 PM

It's scary, because you sound like an ID'ist. They parody themselves.

Ezromation

11-24-05, 08:27 PM

Can we do the God burying dinosaur bones to test peoples faith bit....... (I kind of like that theory)

TheAlphaWolf

11-24-05, 09:25 PM

It's scary, because you sound like an ID'ist.
yeah, don't give them ideas. Then we have to reply to their stupid arguments.

valich

11-30-05, 11:03 PM

So is the intelligent design...here I am being the devil's advocate...the fact that religion evolved and practiced by ~80% of the world's population that tend to believe in intelligent design...can itself be considered as the observational facts.

The ID people feel that while there is a relation between the primates and humans in DNA, and brain mechanics...the conclusion can not be drawn that one fine morning the primate became a human. People have been searching for that missing link for a long time and there has been no such thing...even between specis. To turn on or off a single gene in a human body takes a lot of knowledge and laboratory equipment. Now changing say 1000 genes so that a female primate will give birth to a human type, without rejecting the fetus, is really out of this world. If that is true, we should find the enzyme that is responsible for such process and use it in transplanting biological organs. And I am sure scientists have artificially inseminated human sperm in primates with no results...unless you consider a whole cross specis are in Timbuktu running their empire....:D

According to latest science, humans have been on the Earth scene for only 100,000 years. That is too small a time for nature to experiment turning on and off the gene sequences and make it compatible with the mother primate to create a viable off spring. Turning a 1000 genes just right in such a small period is not possible. Now if you say we have been here for the last 200 million years and therefore the first 50 million years, nature tinkered with the genes and that we can find the half breeds which lasted 100,000 years each...then I can understand the progression...

I am trying to give you an alternate scenario between classical Adam and Eve story and the primate giving birth to a human.

Notice, you could not pin down, exactly what the time frame is for a human to be present on this planet. It is faily established that plant life arrived about 750 million years ago. It takes a long time like a million years or so, for a specis to establish themselves. It takes 60 million years for the dinosaur to become a crocodile...specifically when there is a stress in the environment.

There has been practically no changes in the human brain in the last 4000 years - so, if we can establish exactly when the primates got their higher functions of the brain and invented fire...that will go a long way in establishing your claim.

There is no such thing as people invented fire gradually...either you did one day or you did not...it is like saying, she got pregnant gradually over 5 years...:DI'm colorblind to blue so it's difficult to make it out?

Anyways, I think Einsten, Maxwell Planck, Neils Bohr, Newton, Heisenberg, and Stephen Hawking were more intelligent then humans 4,000 years ago? In any case, we have accumulated a worldwide body of knowledge that is much more superior than anyone had back then. If you can't prove that human intelligence has evolved, you can empirical show that their accumulation of knowledge has, as an indicator of this.