Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: loco on September 23, 2007, 07:42:48 PM
-
Quoting from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html , courtecy of columbusdude82
"The evolutionary study of embryos reached a peak in the late 1800s thanks primarily to the efforts of one extraordinarily gifted, though not entirely honest, scientist named Ernst Haeckel"
"Haeckel was so convinced of his Biogenetic Law that he was willing to bend evidence to support it"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/history/early_evodevo.shtml
"Unfortunately, Haeckel, apparently in his enthusiasm to make his point, modified the drawings of these embryos to make them appear more alike than they actually were. These fudged sketches (or versions derived from them) have appeared in many biology textbooks since then"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/IVthe_times.shtml
Haeckel was the primary enthusiast and popularizer of Darwin's theory of evolution in the late Nineteenth Century.
As if it wasn't bad enough that this great scientist committed fraud, to make matters even worse, many proponents of Darwin's theory are still using the same known fraudulent drawings and claims to sell evolution to school children that Darwin's leading proponent had used to sell Darwin's theory to the general public in 1900.
Many modern biology textbooks still include these fake drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos. They cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry.
-
Stephen Jay Gould was one of the most prominent and enthusiastic cheerleaders of biological evolution during the later decades of the Twentieth Century. As a Harvard professor who published many scholarly articles and books and taught biology, geology and the history of science, Gould was often viewed as a spokesperson for science and one of the most prestigious scientists in the world. As a frequent essayist in the popular press, Gould was also well known to the general public.
Gould was no friend to critics of evolutionary theory. Yet, he exposes an undeniable and incredibly revealing historical fact.
Quoting from his article:
Stephen Jay Gould "Abscheulich (Atrocious!) 2000
"We should therefore not be surprised that Haeckel's drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks! Michael Richardson, of the St. George's Hospital Medical School in London, a colleague who deserves nothing but praise for directing attention to this old issue, wrote to me (letter of August 16, 1999):
If so many historians knew all about the old controversy [over Haeckel's falsified drawings], then why did they not communicate this information to the numerous contemporary authors who use the Haeckel drawings in their books? I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically. I think this is the most important question to come out of
the whole story."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_2_109/ai_60026710/pg_5
-
Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002), pg. 1229:
-
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998), pg. 653:
-
Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth, 1998), pg. 317:
-
Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003), pg. 100:
-
Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003), pg. 315:
-
William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999), pg. 583:
-
Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001), pg. 372:
-
Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 223:
-
Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 283:
-
Watch
Haeckel's Bogus Embryo Drawings (Clip on YouTube)
-
Interesting stuff. Thanks loco.
-
HAHA loco goes hard when in a debate, ill give him that ;D.
-
loco, your the man!
-
i will mention that macroevolution hasnt been observed but is a logical conclusion based on the observation of microevolution(over long periods of time) and similarity in morphology, genetics, biochemical markers etc...
you asking if observation of macroevolution has been observed is like asking if super luminal communication has been observed. it hasnt, but based on observations of criteria it is a very logical implication, and can be theorized quite effectively.
the above is a bad example, i couldnt think of anything that occurs but cannot be witnessed.
so loco, i would agree that macroevolution is a point worth arguing, but you cant honestly beleive that biologists are out to decieve, your generalization from the above drawing, is like a bad christian being generalized to all. abiogenesis is also something you could argue, as the mechanisms are still up in the air. but it obviously occured ;D
-
abiogenesis is also something you could argue, as the mechanisms are still up in the air. but it obviously occured
damn straight. ;D
-
loco, good job looking up these textbooks. This doesn't say as much about the science itself, as it does about a dishonest person and a few, rather lazy textbook authors. (Yes, I said "few," because there are so many more biology textbooks out there.)
Fortunately, I have never used or heard of any of these textbooks. Do you know if they are used in the high school level or at the college level?
Finally, let me quote again from S.J. Gould from that same article:
1. Haeckel's forgeries as old news (Agassiz's contribution): Tales of scientific fraud excite the imagination for good reason. Getting away with this academic equivalent of murder and then being outed a century after your misdeeds makes even better copy...
2. Haeckel's forgeries as irrelevant to the validity of evolution or Darwinian mechanisms (von Baer's contribution): From the very beginning of this frenzied discussion two years ago, I have been thoroughly mystified as to what, beyond simple ignorance or self-serving design, could ever have inspired the creators of the sensationalized version to claim that Haeckel's exposure challenges Darwinian theory or even evolution itself. After all, Haeckel used these drawings to support his theory of recapitulation--the claim that embryos repeat successive adult stages of their ancestry. For reasons elaborated at excruciating length in my Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Darwinian science conclusively disproved and abandoned this idea by 1910 or so, despite its persistence in popular culture. Obviously, neither evolution nor Darwinian theory needs the support of a doctrine so conclusively disconfirmed from within...
In short, the work of Richardson and colleagues goes by a simple and treasured name in my trade: good science. The flap over Haeckel's doctored drawings should leave us feeling ashamed about the partial basis of a widely shared bias now properly exposed and already subjected to exciting new research. But Haeckel's High Victorian (or should I say Bismarckian) misdeeds provide no fodder to foes of Darwin or of evolution.
PS: OneTimeHard, see what loco did here? He substantiated his claims. I am waiting for the day when you will do the same :)
-
PPS: loco, you have a duty to write these publishers and tell them about this shameful screw up :)
-
i will mention that macroevolution hasnt been observed but is a logical conclusion based on the observation of microevolution(over long periods of time) and similarity in morphology, genetics, biochemical markers etc...
That is all I keep saying, that macroevolution has not been observed, but NeoSeminole insists that it has. NeoSeminole seems to be an intelligent, educated person, but he does shoot himself in the foot when he posts sometimes.
Macroevolution has been observed.
::)
But anyway, this thread is not about macroevolution. We've debated that plenty already.
so loco, i would agree that macroevolution is a point worth arguing, but you cant honestly beleive that biologists are out to decieve, your generalization from the above drawing, is like a bad christian being generalized to all. abiogenesis is also something you could argue, as the mechanisms are still up in the air. but it obviously occured ;D
I have neither said, nor do I believe that biologists are out to deceive. After all, it was not creationists who expose this historical fact, but Stephen Jay Gould and Michael Richardson.
But we are not talking about just one dishonest, fraudulent, famous scientist here. Think of all the biology textbook authors, biology teachers, historians, and scientists over a period of some 100 years who allowed the use of Haeckel's drawings in biology books all these years. Many recent biology texts have used the drawings uncritically. They still include these fake drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos. They cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry. These drawings had been known to be fake for over a century.
Why has all of this been kept under the radar in the media, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings and claims being used to sell evolution to school children, high school students and even some college students for so many years?
Why are some people today still denying this historical fact, thus rewriting history? They contradict the facts, the evidence and the testimony of people such as Stephen Jay Gould and Michael Richardson.
-
neo is probably right then, my field isnt evolutionary biology so my knowledge is self taught, so theres bound to be holes.
-
What the fcuk does this have to specifically do with Evolution? (no offence loco, great job)
Any scientifically sound person will have a critical perspective to what they learn and not just accept everything they hear as the truth.
The Popper tradition is strong in the science world today.
Meaning that if you cannot prove something wrong, it's true.
Ie, there's been lots of proof that humans can't live to be 500+ years old (our organs don't hold up that long). So all the historical persons mentioned in the Bible living that long, are one of three things:
*Just myths
*Several persons, one name in the Bible representing a whole family living many generations.
*The time frame being much shorter than actually described in the Bible.
We can't know which of the above is the truth, and I'm sure there is probably some other possibility that escapes me right now, but the main thing is: Through science we've been able to establish that the Bible is not literally true in these parts.
-
What the fcuk does this have to specifically do with Evolution? (no offence loco, great job)
Absolutely nothing. Those mistakes have been acknowledged by more than one developmental anatomist. Its just fuel for the fire...
Any scientifically sound person will have a critical perspective to what they learn and not just accept everything they hear as the truth.
The Popper tradition is strong in the science world today.
Meaning that if you cannot prove something wrong, it's true.
Ie, there's been lots of proof that humans can't live to be 500+ years old (our organs don't hold up that long). So all the historical persons mentioned in the Bible living that long, are one of three things:
*Just myths
*Several persons, one name in the Bible representing a whole family living many generations.
*The time frame being much shorter than actually described in the Bible.
We can't know which of the above is the truth, and I'm sure there is probably some other possibility that escapes me right now, but the main thing is: Through science we've been able to establish that the Bible is not literally true in these parts.
The evolution argument is funny as hell to me. I hold my religious beliefs to myself (I'm Catholic), but they sure do seem to be able to coincide with what I know as a scientist and as a veterinarian. The bottom line with evolution is that simple physics principle of DeltaT or Change/time. Basically it says that everything changes with time. And in the Darwinian sense of things, those creatures which are best suited for a given environment will then go on to succeed and eventually reproduce, thus passing on their traits.
its prettymuch a brainless concept. Think about it, the best example is a college student..... that student as a freshmen will be a very different person than they are when they are finishing their disertation for thier PhD. They have changed over time. Not only that, but the student who is the most suited for completing the course of study for the PhD will be the one most likely to succeed and get it done first. Its that simple. Its also reasonable to think that someone who finishes a PhD within 4 years, will at some point pass on skills/traits/whatever to others be it their children or studnets so they too can succeed at finishing a PhD. This is "microevolution" in its simplist form. Its also something that occurs in universities throughout the world every year.
People make it way way more complex and harder to understand than what it really is. You cannot deny the fact that all things change over time.
-
loco, good job looking up these textbooks. This doesn't say as much about the science itself, as it does about a dishonest person and a few, rather lazy textbook authors. (Yes, I said "few," because there are so many more biology textbooks out there.)
Fortunately, I have never used or heard of any of these textbooks. Do you know if they are used in the high school level or at the college level?
Finally, let me quote again from S.J. Gould from that same article:
PS: OneTimeHard, see what loco did here? He substantiated his claims. I am waiting for the day when you will do the same :)
A few? No, not a few.
Stephen Jay Gould, a reliable resource on the subject, said "in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks"
British embryologist Michael Richardson, another reliable source, said "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts."
I did a quick search on Amazon for High School Biology textbooks and randomly picked one. The one that I picked happens to be by Ken Miller and Joe Levine.
(http://www.millerandlevine.com/images/d-fly-for-index.jpg)
I then googled this textbook and authors to see if they had a website. They do. Quoting from their website.
"British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html
Do you still have your high school and college biology textbooks? Open them up. Chances are, Haeckel's fake drawings are in there cited as evidence for common ancestry. Your biology teachers probably mentioned these drawings to you as evidence, but you probably just don't remember. Then again, maybe you got one of the few Biology textbooks that do not include these fake drawings.
Now that this is out, Biology textbooks are finally being updated and they are not including this fudged evidence.
-
Wow, in the mists of all the intellectual elitists snobbery crap there seems to be a whole lots of contradicting stuff on something that's supposed to be such a FACT. ::)
Props to you loco for going to extra mile to research it.
I still believe evolution still exists in some form or another, while it may not be entirely what the "scientists" think it is at the moment.
-
Wow, in the mists of all the intellectual elitists snobbery crap there seems to be a whole lots of contradicting stuff on something that's supposed to be such a FACT. ::)
Props to you loco for going to extra mile to research it.
I still believe evolution still exists in some form or another, while it may not be entirely what the "scientists" think it is at the moment.
lol at "intellectual elitists snobbery crap." ;D I like it.
Well done loco.
Who let the dogs out?! :D
-
lol at "intellectual elitists snobbery crap." ;D I like it.
Well done loco.
Who let the dogs out?! :D
;D
(http://www.lawdogsusa.org/images/hemispringpole350w.jpg)
-
LOL! ;D
-
Wow, in the mists of all the intellectual elitists snobbery crap there seems to be a whole lots of contradicting stuff on something that's supposed to be such a FACT. ::)
Props to you loco for going to extra mile to research it.
I still believe evolution still exists in some form or another, while it may not be entirely what the "scientists" think it is at the moment.
Mate, when you have your Phd is a scientific field, do go ahead and make such comments, if not, refain from them...
-
Mate, when you have your Phd is a scientific field, do go ahead and make such comments, if not, refain from them...
I'll make what ever fcuking bloody comments I want to make. Thank you. ;)
And if your precious "theory of evolution" was that scientifically sound there wouldn't so many contradictions and debate to the extent of non-scientists like my self or loco and such being able to question it.
Fact of the matter is, science over the last hundreds of years or so has made plenty of assumptions it considered near fact only to be proved wrong by some discovery or invention.
So for me to question science is perfectly kosher especially when it comes to a theory about something that has NEVER been observed according to our resident experts ::).
P.S. When your grammar is above middle school level feel free to respond. ;) ;D I know it was just a typo!
-
And if your precious "theory of evolution" was that scientifically sound there wouldn't so many contradictions and debate to the extent of non-scientists like my self or loco and such being able to question it.
I assure you these so-called "contradictions" reflect your ignorance on the subject matter rather than expose any weaknesses in evolutionary theory. ;)
-
I'll make what ever fcuking bloody comments I want to make. Thank you. ;)
And if your precious "theory of evolution" was that scientifically sound there wouldn't so many contradictions and debate to the extent of non-scientists like my self or loco and such being able to question it.
Fact of the matter is, science over the last hundreds of years or so has made plenty of assumptions it considered near fact only to be proved wrong by some discovery or invention.
So for me to question science is perfectly kosher especially when it comes to a theory about something that has NEVER been observed according to our resident experts ::).
P.S. When your grammar is above middle school level feel free to respond. ;) ;D I know it was just a typo!
Indeed it was a typo.
Regardless, the entire science of modern biology and its offshoots as well as other disciplines such as medicine, are based on evolution. And they have it all wrong after all... ::)
-
I assure you these so-called "contradictions" reflect your ignorance on the subject matter rather than expose any weaknesses in evolutionary theory. ;)
Assure away to your ape heart's desire.
It's not me making the contradictions but instead fellow "scientists with PHD's"
I wonder if those scientists were so weak they had to result to insults in a debate like yourself.
::)
-
Indeed it was a typo.
Regardless, the entire science of modern biology and its offshoots as well as other disciplines such as medicine, are based on evolution. And they have it all wrong after all... ::)
I agree with you. But look at how medicine has developed over the last 500 years. There were many things they considered solid fact only to be proved wrong by a discovery or invention. That's why i said what i said about: " it may not be entirely what the "scientists" think it is at the moment."
-
It's not me making the contradictions but instead fellow "scientists with PHD's"
such as?
-
Assure away to your ape heart's desire.
It's not me making the contradictions but instead fellow "scientists with PHD's"
I wonder if those scientists were so weak they had to result to insults in a debate like yourself.
::)
Of course there is some disagreement on specifics, most prominently punctuated equilibrium and the Cambrian Explosion, but they are arguing how it happened, not that it DID not happen. Savy?
-
such as?
So ALL scientists are in agreement with ALL aspects of the theory of evolution and ALL believe it to be fact?
-
Of course there is some disagreement on specifics, most prominently punctuated equilibrium and the Cambrian Explosion, but they are arguing how it happened, not that it DID not happen. Savy?
I understand based on the evidence why evolution is considered factual. But based on evidence only, as not being complete, becuase it hasn't been observed and the chance of new discoveries opens the possibility that some predictions/assumptions are wrong as this kind of thing has happened through out recorded scientific history. Otherwise, evolution would be as a factual as the earth revolving around the sun.
-
I understand based on the evidence why evolution is considered factual. But based on evidence only, as not being complete, becuase it hasn't been observed and the chance of new discoveries opens the possibility that some predictions/assumptions are wrong as this kind of thing has happened through out recorded scientific history. Otherwise, evolution would be as a factual as the earth revolving around the sun.
...What...exactly do you claim happened...if I might ask...?
-
...What...exactly do you claim happened...if I might ask...?
I have nothing to claim. I'm not making the point i'm making becuase i have some "godly religious answer" I'm only saying that we don't know 100% for sure about evolution.
I'm very much non-religious.
-
I have nothing to claim. I'm not making the point i'm making becuase i have some "godly religious answer" I'm only saying that we don't know 100% for sure about evolution.
I'm very much non-religious.
We don't know every itsy bitsy detail but we know the 90% gist of it...
Or we can teach people Adam and Eve and other fairy tales...would be much better right?
-
We don't know every itsy bitsy detail but we know the 90% gist of it...
Or we can teach people Adam and Eve and other fairy tales...would be much better right?
I don't think creationism should be taught in school, not even as an alternative....unless it's billed as a "belief"
And i'm not against teaching evolution in schools as long as it's not billed as fact.
-
So ALL scientists are in agreement with ALL aspects of the theory of evolution and ALL believe it to be fact?
I'm sorry, but I don't see any names in your post. Monster backing up your claim. ::)
-
I'm only saying that we don't know 100% for sure about evolution.
you do realize this pretty much applies to everything? There is such a thing as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
I'm sorry, but I don't see any names in your post. Monster backing up your claim. ::)
yeah w/e ::)
Monster avoidance of the question.
-
you do realize this pretty much applies to everything? There is such a thing as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If evolution was at that point there wouldn't be the debate.
But i do agree, it's about as close as it can get at the moment.
-
If evolution was at that point there wouldn't be the debate.
But i do agree, it's about as close as it can get at the moment.
There is no debate as to the fact of evolution, just how it happened in some cases.
-
I don't think creationism should be taught in school, not even as an alternative....unless it's billed as a "belief"
And i'm not against teaching evolution in schools as long as it's not billed as fact.
So evolution should be put on par with the holy book of fairy tales?
-
I don't think creationism should be taught in school, not even as an alternative....unless it's billed as a "belief"
And i'm not against teaching evolution in schools as long as it's not billed as fact.
Presumably you are qualified to decide what can and can't be taught in science classes in school because you have a PhD in molecular biology? Or perhaps you are a tenured professor in nuclear physics?
Before passing judgment on scientific ideas that are the product of centuries of hard labor on the part of humanity's greatest minds, perhaps you should acquaint yourself a bit with those ideas.
No, reading posts on Getbig doesn't count ;)
-
So evolution should be put on par with the holy book of fairy tales?
No, not at all.
-
Presumably you are qualified to decide what can and can't be taught in science classes in school because you have a PhD in molecular biology? Or perhaps you are a tenured professor in nuclear physics?
Before passing judgment on scientific ideas that are the product of centuries of hard labor on the part of humanity's greatest minds, perhaps you should acquaint yourself a bit with those ideas.
No, reading posts on Getbig doesn't count ;)
I can pass as much judgment and give as many opinions as i want.
Do you have a PHD? Even if you do, maybe you just shut the fcuk up and stop being a snippy little bitch.
If you took the time to read you'd realize what flavor the kool-aid was before you got up in it.
I was having a discussion with someone else and was voicing my opinion about what should be taught in schools and how it should be taught. For the most part it's taught exactly how it should be.
-
Oh my... aren't we melting down all over the place today...
-
Oh my... aren't we melting down all over the place today...
No, but i'm alert enough to read before i post. ::)
-
I like this thread. :)
-
Logical thinking:
If one theory is wrong does not imply that a contradictory theory is right.
A lot of you religious folks make the mistake of thinking because you have found "holes" in evolution you have therefore substantiated creationism - on the contrary it could be that both theories are false. Disproving evolution does not prove creationism.
-
Logical thinking:
If one theory is wrong does not imply that a contradictory theory is right.
A lot of you religious folks make the mistake of thinking because you have found "holes" in evolution you have therefore substantiated creationism - on the contrary it could be that both theories are false. Disproving evolution does not prove creationism.
no doubt
-
no doubt
ozmo, once you read about biology, and even other disciplines such as immunology, medicine, biochem etc the patterns and commonalities become obvious.
you are right in a way, i think your getting caught up on the fact that evolution can not be known 100%, i dont beleive anything can in reality to be honest, there always seems to be exceptions or more knowledge to acquire. but macroevolution works on humungous time scales, so "observation" of it as its occuring is impossible in reality, but its consequence(microevolution) can be seen.
however, i think you get this point but a better question is if macroevolution is wrong, just hypothetically, what do you propose is the correct theory?
i mean, do you beleive that god selectively participated in the start of each species, then for some reason allowed a natural process(micro evolution) to occur in his place to ensure the surivival. Obviously there is a natural explanation for the beginning of life on earth, and the proliferation of it, wouldnt you agree?
if not, write down an alternative theory. honestly, or your thoughts, id be interested to hear them.
im not being condescending at all either.
-
It is not strictly true that we cannot observe macroevolution - we have been breeding domesticated animals using something other than natural selection for centuries. This suggests natural (ie. natural selection) evolution in an environment devoid of mans influence.
-
It is not strictly true that we cannot observe macroevolution - we have been breeding domesticated animals using something other than natural selection for centuries. This suggests natural (ie. natural selection) evolution in an environment devoid of mans influence.
yes speciation. i think the sticking point is more so changes within families or phyla. as well, there is a misconception that macroevolution is instantaneous, which is not the case.
have changes in families or phyla been observed? i would imagine the time scale would be very prohibitive.
-
It is not strictly true that we cannot observe macroevolution - we have been breeding domesticated animals using something other than natural selection for centuries. This suggests natural (ie. natural selection) evolution in an environment devoid of mans influence.
yeah but the thing is none of these domesticated animals are evolving into anything else.They are still according to their kind.
-
yeah but the thing is none of these domesticated animals are evolving into anything else.They are still according to their kind.
Dogs are domesticated wolves. How do dogs differ from other wolves?
-
ozmo, once you read about biology, and even other disciplines such as immunology, medicine, biochem etc the patterns and commonalities become obvious.
you are right in a way, i think your getting caught up on the fact that evolution can not be known 100%, i dont beleive anything can in reality to be honest, there always seems to be exceptions or more knowledge to acquire. but macroevolution works on humungous time scales, so "observation" of it as its occuring is impossible in reality, but its consequence(microevolution) can be seen.
however, i think you get this point but a better question is if macroevolution is wrong, just hypothetically, what do you propose is the correct theory?
i mean, do you beleive that god selectively participated in the start of each species, then for some reason allowed a natural process(micro evolution) to occur in his place to ensure the surivival. Obviously there is a natural explanation for the beginning of life on earth, and the proliferation of it, wouldnt you agree?
if not, write down an alternative theory. honestly, or your thoughts, id be interested to hear them.
im not being condescending at all either.
My main point is that we don't know 100% for sure and that a discovery or invention may give new insight on how all this happened. I see your point that there is no way to observe it as it happens and that's just the thing with trying to find out about something that happened long ago in the past. We weren't there. So there is a strong possibility that something may have happened that we don;t know about that might change what we think happen. And I'm not talking about something magical like God making things appear instantly.
I believe Evolution the way science has described it as something that has probably happened and i believe it's part of "God's" way of creating life in the universe. I don't think a pool of elements over a period of billions of years produced Humans all by its self.
I see Scientists and Atheists being able to describe every detail of a tree so much so they fail to see the Forrest.
-
yeah but the thing is none of these domesticated animals are evolving into anything else.They are still according to their kind.
what is your definition of a "kind?"
-
My main point is that we don't know 100% for sure and that a discovery or invention may give new insight on how all this happened. I see your point that there is no way to observe it as it happens and that's just the thing with trying to find out about something that happened long ago in the past. We weren't there. So there is a strong possibility that something may have happened that we don;t know about that might change what we think happen. And I'm not talking about something magical like God making things appear instantly.
I believe Evolution the way science has described it as something that has probably happened and i believe it's part of "God's" way of creating life in the universe. I don't think a pool of elements over a period of billions of years produced Humans all by its self.
I see Scientists and Atheists being able to describe every detail of a tree so much so they fail to see the Forrest.
I.E. Unintelligent Design...
-
I.E. Unintelligent Design...
On the surface yes, it would seem so. Much like an imperfect leaf or branch. Look at the whole forest from the finite particles of energy to what your eyes see..
It's brilliant.
-
On the surface yes, it would seem so. Much like an imperfect leaf or branch. Look at the whole forest from the finite particles of energy to what your eyes see..
It's brilliant.
Our plumbing...subtly beautiful.... ::)
-
Our plumbing...subtly beautiful.... ::)
rotting trees, worms and pigs
-
yeah but the thing is none of these domesticated animals are evolving into anything else.They are still according to their kind.
Are chihuahuas not different enough to wolves? Man has not been trying to breed another species with these dogs just refine/bolster the particular attributes they are interested in.
-
Are chihuahuas not different enough to wolves? Man has not been trying to breed another specifies with these dogs just refine/bolster the particular attributes they are interested in.
you are saying chihuahuas are a link in the chain between dogs and rodents?
-
Our plumbing...subtly beautiful.... ::)
Trapezkerl,
I think that this is the third time that I see you complain about our plumbing, peeing and pooping. Why is that?
I don't have any problems with my plumbing. Peeing and pooping, in other words, relieving yourself is one of life's little pleasures, and it is free. ;D
You don't think so? Then I recommend adding more fiber to your diet, and more water too. Add some cranberry juice too. I've heard that it helps clear out urinary track infections, if that's the problem. :)
Oh, and low-carb diets can make you hate your plumbing too. Carbs are loaded with water and some even with fiber. Protein and fat have neither water nor fiber. People don't realize how much they lower their water and fiber intake when they go low carb.
-
Trapezkerl,
I think that this is the third time that I see you complain about our plumbing, peeing and pooping. Why is that?
I don't have any problems with my plumbing. Peeing and pooping, in other words, relieving yourself is one of life's little pleasures, and it is free. ;D
You don't think so? Then I recommend adding more fiber to your diet, and more water too. Add some cranberry juice too. I've heard that it helps clear out urinary track infections, if that's the problem. :)
Oh, and low-carb diets can make you hate your plumbing too. Carbs are loaded with water and some even with fiber. Protein and fat have neither water nor fiber. People don't realize how much they lower their water and fiber intake when they go low carb.
What's so screwy about our plumbing anyway? Waste is processed and ejected. So what? If you are sick it throws everything into a bit of chaos....same would happen with the best designed machine if it needed maintenance.
I wonder what the manufacturing defect rate would be for a machine like that vs the defect rate for people at age 18?
And could those machines reproduce themselves?