Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Dos Equis on November 05, 2007, 11:08:41 AM
-
I'm reading the book "Billions of Missing Links: A Rational Look at the Mysteries Evolution Can't Explain," by Dr. Geoffrey Simmons. (For you intellectually dishonest people, the book was actually written by the Discovery Institute.)
It is my weekend reading, so it will take me a while to finish, but fascinating read so far. Through the first five chapters he talks about the many, many improbable coincidences that resulted in life as we know it. The foreword has a discussion of all of the steps involved in childbirth. I've been through it four times, having been present for the birth of all four of my children (except one c-section), but the amount of things that all have to take place, perfectly, for childbirth is remarkable.
Here are some things I've found particularly interesting in the first few chapters:
1. He believes the earth is billions of years old.
2. Evolution scientists have apparently ignored the tenets of their own scientific method: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
3. There are no published experiments that clearly show one species naturally evolving into another species. Darwin apparently admitted this in "forgotten passages in many of his writings."
4. You cannot prove either evolution or intelligent design through testing.
5. He identifies a number of animals with no clear cut ancestors, including whales, cuttlefish, giraffes, amoebas, hummingbirds, the illuminated net devil fish, Komodo dragon, etc.
6. "Fossil records suggest that the Earth's temperatures and climate have remained essentially the same for 3.5 billion years. It cleans, refreshes, protects, defends, regenerates, maintains, and repairs itself. In a sense, it may breathe, and it definitely has a circulatory system. No one knows how our planet acquired these abilities or remained stable. The only choices appear to be improbable coincidences, Intelligent Design, or incredible luck."
7. Since Darwin's days we have discovered thousands of new life-forms. Some experts say we know of 14 million. When you add the seas and microscopic worlds, we could be up to 100 million different species, all of whom should have several intermediates or predecessors if they were the product of evolution.
More next week. :)
-
I remember listening to this guy on Coast 2 Coast AM awhile back.
-
I remember listening to this guy on Coast 2 Coast AM awhile back.
I heard him on the radio too. That's how I learned about the book.
-
3. There are no published experiments that clearly show one species naturally evolving into another species. Darwin apparently admitted this in "forgotten passages in many of his writings."
5. He identifies a number of animals with no clear cut ancestors, including whales, cuttlefish, giraffes, amoebas, hummingbirds, the illuminated net devil fish, Komodo dragon, etc.
7. Since Darwin's days we have discovered thousands of new life-forms. Some experts say we know of 14 million. When you add the seas and microscopic worlds, we could be up to 100 million different species, all of whom should have several intermediates or predecessors if they were the product of evolution.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.
-
Right, loco. And no such complex organ has been demonstrated to exist :)
-
How many planets are there in the universe? Is it so unlikely that given the number of planets, evolution took place on one of them?
-
This book sounds very interesting, Beach.
-
This book sounds very interesting, Beach.
If this stuff had any real science in it, they'd be publishing it in real scientific journals and presenting it in real scientific conferences, but since ID is just religious non-science, they push it on the lay public in books like these aimed to debauch science and mislead the reader.
Like I said, you might as well be reading books on Flat Earth Geology by the Flat Earth Society.
-
More observations:
1. Apparently, nearly everything about the cockroach defies the theory of evolution. It has been unchanged for about 350 million years. It's one of the smartest nonhumans. Researchers who challenge animals to solve mazes say a cockroach is nearly as smart as an octopus, which ranks just below dolphins and chimps. They have a very complex anatomy. They molt about five to seven times, which could not have evolved in stages. Partial molting would result in death (keeps moisture in and bacteria out). They have a second set of teeth in their stomach. They have two brains. :o One in their head and one in their rear end. There is no precedent for a second brain or second set of teeth.
2. No predecessor for the elephant.
3. No predecessor for the emperor penguin and their crazy mating ritual. You can appreciate this if you've seen March of the Penguins. :)
4. No predecessor for the flea or beaver. There are no intermediate home-builders.
5. The octopus is unique. It has "'distributed intelligence,' meaning that its thinking occurs both in the brain as well as in billions of neurons distributed along its tentacles." Also one of the few animals with "observational intelligence." An experiment was conducted that "had a group of octopi watching (from their separate aquariums) while another octopus would receive food whenever it played with a red ball, not a yellow ball. Overwhelmingly, the octopi observers selected the red ball when they were given their turn." They can change colors to fit their environment, change color to reflect emotions, and change shapes for offense or defense. "Some octopi as large as ten feet across can slip through a one-and-a-half-inch pipe." :o Every mother octopus dies very soon after her babies are born, which defies the theory of evolution. "Most of the intermediate links to the octopus appear to be missing."
6. According to the theory of evolution, dolphins are not direct descendants of fish. They allegedly began as warm-blooded land animals that returned to the sea many millions of years ago have not changed in five million years. Evolutionists don't explain how this happened. They are warm-blooded mammals who bear their young alive and nurse their offspring. No gills, scales, eggs, or swim bladders.
Will read about airborne animals next week.
-
If this stuff had any real science in it, they'd be publishing it in real scientific journals and presenting it in real scientific conferences, but since ID is just religious non-science, they push it on the lay public in books like these aimed to debauch science and mislead the reader.
Like I said, you might as well be reading books on Flat Earth Geology by the Flat Earth Society.
You're only misinforming yourself. :)
Educated people learn real science.
-
I remember listening to this guy on Coast 2 Coast AM awhile back.
I thought I was one of the only people to listen to that show (at 2 am in the morning)
-
You're only misinforming yourself. :)
Educated people learn real science.
which is not taught at "the" Ohio state university . . . hth.
-
which is not taught at "the" Ohio state university . . . hth.
Another sore Michigan fan, I see 8)
-
Unfortunately, humans will never be able to grasp the vastness of the universe. It is on a scale that our brains cannot understand.
We throw out things like "100 million species," or "how did the billions and billions of processes that need to be present for life to happen just happen.....what are the chance?"
What people don't understand is that those processes are nothing compared the vastness of the universe.
Compared to potential number of planets in the universe, the chance that the same billions and billions of processes involved in life just "happened" isn't even a chance. It is a mathematical fact.
The chance that all those process just "popped up" somewhere else in the universe is about the same as the chance that a coin will land heads just once if you flip it 10,000 times.
The number of potential planets divided into the processes in our body is a laughable number.
Most can't grasp this. Most can't even grasp the concept that the earth doesn't move around the sun. It moves in a straight line. The gravitational pull of the sun warps space enough to cause that straight line to wrap around the sun in an apparent circle.
-
Unfortunately, humans will never be able to grasp the vastness of the universe. It is on a scale that our brains cannot understand.
We throw out things like "100 million species," or "how did the billions and billions of processes that need to be present for life to happen just happen.....what are the chance?"
What people don't understand is that those processes are nothing compared the vastness of the universe.
Compared to potential number of planets in the universe, the chance that the same billions and billions of processes involved in life just "happened" isn't even a chance. It is a mathematical fact.
Very true:
Marcel-Paul Schützenberger:
The Miracles of Darwinism
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm
-
1. Evolution has no answer for airborne creatures. It was not possible for a species to learn how to fly in sequential steps. If a species did not have all of the tools needed to take flight, stay in the air, and land safely, it would have never survived.
2. "Bat fossils that remarkably resemble modern bats are dated back to 50 million years ago, but no apparent predecessor species has been found."
3. No explanation for the woodpecker and its beak design.
4. "The pelican's nostril has a flap that closes when it dives. Kiwi birds sniff along the ground like a dog and they are the only bird with nostrils at the tip of their beak."
5. "The red knot bird flies nearly 9000 miles each year to feast on millions of horseshoe crab eggs laid along Delaware's coast. Within ten days, the female lays four large eggs. All this is described by ornithologist Brian Harrington: 'It is no exaggeration to liken her accomplishment to a woman giving birth to a sixty-pound baby within ten days of completing a six-thousand mile hike at altitudes higher than the Himalayas!'"
-
Beach Bum, I am sorry to tell you that whoever wrote this book is talking out of his colon.
1 is blatantly false. The ability to be in flight for 1 second is better than the inability to fly, and the ability to fly for 2 seconds is better than the ability to fly for just 1, and so on. Evolution has very elegant explanations for flight.
2 I don't know if it's true or not.
3 is false as well. For very elegant evolutionary explanations of 1 and 3, I refer you to Richard Dawkins' brilliant book "The Blind Watchmaker."
Really, the author of your book should have opened a basic collegiate biology textbook before writing a book of his own... Every idiot thinks he's got a winning argument against natural selection, but none of them know what they're talking about...
-
Regarding subterranean life:
1. There are "trillions of miles of fungal threads, penetrated by quintillions of root hairs, and inhabited by a near-infinite number of viruses, bacteria, molds, fungi, protozoa, insects, crabs, worms, reptiles, and mammals. A pinch of soil can have a billion or more lives, each of them incredibly complex in their own, every system governed by unique rules."
2. "One might ask how plants could have 'evolved' without the ability to recover nitrogen. Surely, survival of the fittest should have brought out more autonomous groups. For some reason it didn't, and interestingly, it can't be just any plant using any nitrogen-fixing bacteria. There are very particular compatibility issues. Somehow, the right bacteria is capable of finding the right root, and both it and the root know how to set up a mutually beneficial shop without ever having seen each other before. To date, scientists have found over 20 genes that aid in this process."
Will post some interesting info about worms later. Have to run . . . .
-
Interesting stuff about the earthworm:
1. "According to fossil studies, worms have been here for nearly half a billion years. . . . They can easily go forward and backward, hibernate for years several feet under the ground, and have enormous capabilities to regenerate lost parts."
2. They can grow another head if it is bitten off by a predator. "Worms can be cut into pieces and every segment will grow another worm. Cut the worm at segment 18 and it will grow exactly 18 segments back and add the appropriate head or tail."
3. "One can suture the tail from one worm with the middle section from another and a head from a third, and they will soon function as a new worm. Try connecting the dots on this evolutionary game. Impossible?"
4. "They have one to five hearts in a row and a primitive brain."
5. "Many worms are hermaphrodites . . . ."
Viruses next . . . .
-
Beach Bum, thanks very much for these! Very interesting stuff! Keep them coming. ;D
-
The author of this book must be delirious.
Absurd notions that life is too complex to warrant complete evolution.
-
The author of this book must be delirious.
Absurd notions that life is too complex to warrant complete evolution.
Why do you hate the Lord Jesus Christ so much? ???
-
Why do you hate the Lord Jesus Christ so much? ???
He was a great salesman, that guy
-
Beach Bum, thanks very much for these! Very interesting stuff! Keep them coming. ;D
No problem mang. Ask and ye shall receive. :)
1. Viruses are everywhere and "it seems likely they have helped shape life on Earth since its beginning."
2. "Their predecessors are unknown, however, and they may also represent the biggest collection of missing links of all. Every type of virus would have needed millions of chemicals in different combinations and varied shapes that somehow successively built upon themselves. There is also the possibility that they broke free from already living beings--renegade cell parts. No one knows how viruses fit into the theory of evolution, but their overwhelming presence, seeming ancient age, and incredible impact demands an explanation form evolutionists."
3. "Viruses are by far the most common organism on the this planet, and altogether they easily outnumber all other living entities combined."
4. "[N]o one has ever shown a virus mutating into another species of microorganism."
5. We also have bad viruses. "A hemorrhagic virus may have destroyed the Aztec nation in the 1500s, not Hernando Cortes. The influenza epidemic of 1918 killed 20 million people worldwide." It's possible humans are "accidental hosts" for some viruses.
6. "Throughout the years, supporters of the theory of evolution have chosen to ignore viruses. Dr. Stephen Gould, in The Book of Life, allotted them only a single paragraph (out of 250 pages). It begins, 'There is one other problematic group, the viruses, which are particularly hard to define.' Dr. Roger Lewin's The Thread of Life: The Smithsonian Looks at Evolution does not have viruses listed in its glossary. In contrast, Dr. Scott Freeman's Biological Sciences textbook has a very comprehensive chapter on viruses. In it, he says, 'But currently, there is no widely accepted view where viruses came from.'"
Up next, "Improbable Natural Designs" . . .
-
Beach Bum, I have a book for you. It's by Michael Shermer: "Why Darwin Matters - The Case Against Intelligent Design."
He writes from a staunch evolutionist's perspective, of course, and harshly exposes ID for the pseudoscience that it is, but with a great deal of respect and bending over backwards for religion. Check out some reviews of the book, and maybe read the excerpts on Amazon if there are any. If it interests you and you decide to read it, let us know what you think.
-
Beach Bum, I have a book for you. It's by Michael Shermer: "Why Darwin Matters - The Case Against Intelligent Design."
He writes from a staunch evolutionist's perspective, of course, and harshly exposes ID for the pseudoscience that it is, but with a great deal of respect and bending over backwards for religion. Check out some reviews of the book, and maybe read the excerpts on Amazon if there are any. If it interests you and you decide to read it, let us know what you think.
I'm a little busy reading a book that exposes gaping holes in the theory of evolution. :) I'm also reading two other books (trampling on my "one book at a time" rule) and was given for Christmas "In Defense of Our America: The Fight for Civil Liberties in the Age of Terror." I doubt I'll get to Shermer anytime soon, assuming I have any interest in his book. But thanks for the recommendation. I’m always looking for good books.
-
This shit is only an issue on the USA, allegedly the forerunner of science?! ::)
-
I'm a little busy reading a book that exposes gaping holes in the theory of evolution. :) I'm also reading two other books (trampling on my "one book at a time" rule) and was given for Christmas "In Defense of Our America: The Fight for Civil Liberties in the Age of Terror." I doubt I'll get to Shermer anytime soon, assuming I have any interest in his book. But thanks for the recommendation. I’m always looking for good books.
That's the reason I recommeded this particular book to you.
Beach Bum, would you agree that humility is a Christian virtue? If so, then I ask that you consider showing some humility in this regard. If you are not a trained biologist, then perhaps you should consider that you don't know better than all the world's biologists, that you aren't better informed than they are, and that if these "gaping holes" really existed, they would have been found by those who labor in labs day and night, not by a bunch of creationist rabble rousers with no academic qualification in evolution, paleontology, or genetics.
Every time you make a list of what you think are "holes" in evolution, I look through them and realize that anyone who has bothered reading real biology books would knock these arguments down in an instant.
To be sure, there are lots of crucial, very important, and very lively debates going on in evolution. ID is not one of them. If you want a list of areas where biologists differ passionately and where the scientific method operates at its finest, Shermer provides just that: a list of all the real areas of debate in evolution. It's very interesting, and completely destroys the creationist view that evolution is this closed members-only club that strictly enforces Darwinian doctrine.
:)
-
That's the reason I recommeded this particular book to you.
Beach Bum, would you agree that humility is a Christian virtue? If so, then I ask that you consider showing some humility in this regard. If you are not a trained biologist, then perhaps you should consider that you don't know better than all the world's biologists, that you aren't better informed than they are, and that if these "gaping holes" really existed, they would have been found by those who labor in labs day and night, not by a bunch of creationist rabble rousers with no academic qualification in evolution, paleontology, or genetics.
Every time you make a list of what you think are "holes" in evolution, I look through them and realize that anyone who has bothered reading real biology books would knock these arguments down in an instant.
To be sure, there are lots of crucial, very important, and very lively debates going on in evolution. ID is not one of them. If you want a list of areas where biologists differ passionately and where the scientific method operates at its finest, Shermer provides just that: a list of all the real areas of debate in evolution. It's very interesting, and completely destroys the creationist view that evolution is this closed members-only club that strictly enforces Darwinian doctrine.
:)
I agree humility is a Christian virtue. I fail to see how humility has one iota to do with me wanting to read a book you have recommended.
I was taught the theory of evolution in school. It permeated my biology, history, geology (yuck), and geography (boring) classes. Currently, I am reading a very good book that discusses things we did not cover in those classes. I have a learned a lot so far.
I am simply citing passages from a very good book. I don't need to be a "trained biologist" to understand the questions and points being made in the book. The book isn't about intelligent design. It's about problems with the theory of evolution. I'll continue to post points raised in the book. You can either ignore them, question them, or continue to be a drone. :)
-
I agree humility is a Christian virtue. I fail to see how humility has one iota to do with we wanting to read a book you have recommended.
It doesn't have to do with you reading a book I recommended. It has to do with:
... perhaps you should consider that you don't know better than all the world's biologists, that you aren't better informed than they are, and that if these "gaping holes" really existed, they would have been found by those who labor in labs day and night, not by a bunch of creationist rabble rousers with no academic qualification in evolution, paleontology, or genetics.
I am simply citing passages from a very good book. I don't need to be a "trained biologist" to under the questions and points being made in the book. The book isn't about intelligent design. It's about problems with the theory of evolution.
If you (or the author, for that matter) really understood the subject, you'd know that these aren't problems for evolution at all. Like I said, if you want real evolution problems, see Shermer.
-
It doesn't have to do with you reading a book I recommended. It has to do with:
If you (or the author, for that matter) really understood the subject, you'd know that these aren't problems for evolution at all. Like I said, if you want real evolution problems, see Shermer.
And where did I say I know better than the world's biologists? I'm simply reading a book and reporting what I read. Does that threaten you and your beliefs? Sure sounds like it.
You can argue with Dr. Simmons all you want, but I believe his credentials are a little better than yours. :) In any event, like I said, if the information from his book bothers you, then don't read it. Or you can question it, or you can continue with your talking points. Doesn't matter to me.
-
You can argue with Dr. Simmons all you want, but I believe his credentials are a little better than yours. :)
Don't count on it :)
-
Don't count on it :)
Dr. Geoffrey Simmons has an undergrad degree in biology. He studied the human body and evolutionary theory for more than 40 years. He received his M.D. in 1969 and now practices in Oregon. He is board certified in internal medicine. He has also written "What Darwin Didn't Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution."
Aren't you a student?
-
Dr. Geoffrey Simmons has an undergrad degree in biology. He studied the human body and evolutionary theory for more than 40 years. He received his M.D. in 1969 and now practices in Oregon. He is board certified in internal medicine. He has also written "What Darwin Didn't Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution."
Aren't you a student?
Yes I am. And how does all that medical training make him qualified in evolutionary biology? It's like saying a mechanical engineer is qualified to discuss quantum theory.
-
Yes I am. And how does all that medical training make him qualified in evolutionary biology? It's like saying a mechanical engineer is qualified to discuss quantum theory.
I believe what I said, and what you questioned, was whether his credentials are better than yours. So your credentials as a student are better than someone with a degree in biology, who has a medical degree, is board certified in internal medicine, has studied evolutionary theory for more than 40 years, has written two books about it, and has lectured repeatedly about it?
-
Why, yes :) I do believe so!
-
O.K. ::)
-
I'm reading the book "Billions of Missing Links: A Rational Look at the Mysteries Evolution Can't Explain," by Dr. Geoffrey Simmons. (For you intellectually dishonest people, the book was actually written by the Discovery Institute.)
It is my weekend reading, so it will take me a while to finish, but fascinating read so far. Through the first five chapters he talks about the many, many improbable coincidences that resulted in life as we know it. The foreword has a discussion of all of the steps involved in childbirth. I've been through it four times, having been present for the birth of all four of my children (except one c-section), but the amount of things that all have to take place, perfectly, for childbirth is remarkable.
Here are some things I've found particularly interesting in the first few chapters:
1. He believes the earth is billions of years old.
2. Evolution scientists have apparently ignored the tenets of their own scientific method: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
3. There are no published experiments that clearly show one species naturally evolving into another species. Darwin apparently admitted this in "forgotten passages in many of his writings."
4. You cannot prove either evolution or intelligent design through testing.
5. He identifies a number of animals with no clear cut ancestors, including whales, cuttlefish, giraffes, amoebas, hummingbirds, the illuminated net devil fish, Komodo dragon, etc.
6. "Fossil records suggest that the Earth's temperatures and climate have remained essentially the same for 3.5 billion years. It cleans, refreshes, protects, defends, regenerates, maintains, and repairs itself. In a sense, it may breathe, and it definitely has a circulatory system. No one knows how our planet acquired these abilities or remained stable. The only choices appear to be improbable coincidences, Intelligent Design, or incredible luck."
7. Since Darwin's days we have discovered thousands of new life-forms. Some experts say we know of 14 million. When you add the seas and microscopic worlds, we could be up to 100 million different species, all of whom should have several intermediates or predecessors if they were the product of evolution.
More next week. :)
giraffes have a living ancestor called the Okape, which is called the short neck giraffe. The theory is that giraffes long necks were just adaption for tall trees, evolving from the short neck (Okape) giraffe. They I believe are in the same family as camels. Hummingbirds are in the same family as swifts and swallows, which are in turn related to nighthawks and nightjars. All have that big eyed-wide mouth, small and week feet, with sharp feathers, and streamlined bodies. The Komodo dragon is nothing more than a big monitor lizard, and probably is related to the huge monitors that used to roam Australia several though years ago.
-
Parker, why do you hate the Lord Jesus Christ so much? ???
Don't you know those seeming relationships were only put there in nature by the Lord during the creation in 4004 BC merely to test our faith?
-
really good info beach.
keep up the good work!
-
Parker, why do you hate the Lord Jesus Christ so much? ???
Don't you know those seeming relationships were only put there in nature by the Lord during the creation in 4004 BC merely to test our faith?
I think I need to go pray...For only the Lord knows my heart...
-
really good info beach.
keep up the good work!
Thanks mang. :)
Improbable natural designs:
1. "The gecko lizard can easily walk along, up, and down any wall, and across any ceiling, without falling. Electron microscopy has revealed that each lizard has about 500 million suction cups on its toes; each about .0000008 of an inch wide. Their feet are also formed at a specific angle so they can easily peel off different cups yet remain secure. These suction devices are also self-cleaning. Imagine a dangling ancient lizard crying out for help because it had too loose of a grip. There are no predecessors known."
2. "A tropical fish Anableps dowi has four eyes, which look much like two large eyes. There are no clear-cut predecessors."
Next . . . Motion designs . . . .
-
Motion Designs
1. "Moving across or through water comes in many styles. The dolphin and whale swim with their tail swinging up and down, the opposite of fish tails. Where are the intermediates? Land mammals, their presumed ancestors, mostly move their tails up to defecate or mate."
2. "Motion design is the ultimate choreography. Whether the activity occurs along the ground, in the air, or through the water, billions of muscle, nerve, blood, and bone cells are coordinated to make each part of an animal's body move in exceedingly smooth and select ways that suit them and their survival. A fish navigating a riverbed, a bat flying between trees, and even you turning this page are not consequences of chance mutations or slow evolutionary transitions."
Structure Designs
1. A hen's egg defies evolution. "All hen's eggs are ready to hatch on the twenty-first day. Every day is precisely preprogrammed. The heart starts beating on the sixth day. ON the nineteenth day the embryo uses its egg tooth to puncture the air sac (beneath the flat end) and then takes two days to crack through the shell."
2. Regarding bones, exoskeletons, and shells, "[t]he fossil records should be loaded with intermediate shells and exoskeletons. It is not."
Plant Designs
"The plant's side of this interaction [between animal and plant kingdoms] requires the presence of a pigment called chlorophyll, which is found inside microscopic pea-shaped green organelles within each cell of every leaf. Some scientists think they might once have been green microorganisms that were trapped and then passed on, but that's only speculation--and if so, a rather striking combination of accidents. Notably, chloroplasts are found at the top of every plant or are spread out along branches and limbs so that they can capture the most sunlight. A plant evolving without chloroplasts is like a book without pages. They had to have arrived together."
-
Beach you should maybe take a Anthropology class, b/c some of the things that you point of as having no scientific explanition do infact have one. Are they something that you would consider true thats for you to decide but just learning whats wrong with something is close minded, you should also learn whats RIGHT about evolution as well. I consider myself a Christian but I also believe in evolution.
-
Beach you should maybe take a Anthropology class, b/c some of the things that you point of as having no scientific explanition do infact have one. Are they something that you would consider true thats for you to decide but just learning whats wrong with something is close minded, you should also learn whats RIGHT about evolution as well. I consider myself a Christian but I also believe in evolution.
Tony I'm not really pointing anything out. Just repeating what I'm reading in a book.
I was taught the "from goo to you" theory throughout school, including in biology, history, geology, etc. class. That includes an "animal psychology" class. One of the worst mistakes of my academic life. Thought it was going to be an easy class. Turned out to be ridiculously hard (because of the professor).
What I'm doing now is reading about things that challenge what I've already been taught. That's what truly open minded people do. :) I learned a great deal from "Darwin's Black Box" and I'm learning quite a bit from this book.
-
Nature's Laws
1. "Seventy percent of the earth's surface is water, and 90 percent of that is ocean. Only 3 percent of the total water is fresh water, and three-quarters of that is frozen at the polar ice caps. In essence, we directly depend on less than 1 percent of all water. Fortunately, water can exist in three major forms. An accident? Heat evaporates it from the oceans to form clouds, it moves over land, cools, and condenses back to water, snow, or ice. It then returns to earth, re-nourishes both plant and animal life, and returns to the sea. How might it be there if water could not make the changes to complete this cycle?"
2. "A geometric constant in nature is symmetry. . . . Any deviation from the usual design prompts the question, what's wrong with him, her, or it? Symmetry is much more than mere aesthetic appreciation, however. It has definite mechanical advantages. Imagine how a bear would survive if its teeth were misaligned, how a horse would gallop if its legs were randomly placed, or a bird would fly if its wings were different sizes. Did these symmetries evolve? If so, there's a lot of weird fossils still missing."
3. "Natural laws govern our existence. Like a bridge designed by an engineer, most structures in the living world fit into or can be explained by mathematical equations. Did the perfectly suited protective cushion in an elephant's foot come before it's hefty torso? Or did they come together? The evidence does not show a long line of crippled elephants breeding until the right cushion happened by mutation. And so it goes with nearly every aspect of every animal and plant."
-
Tony I'm not really pointing anything out. Just repeating what I'm reading in a book.
I was taught the "from goo to you" theory throughout school, including in biology, history, geology, etc. class. That includes an "animal psychology" class. One of the worst mistakes of my academic life. Thought it was going to be an easy class. Turned out to be ridiculously hard (because of the professor).
What I'm doing now is reading about things that challenge what I've already been taught. That's what truly open minded people do. :) I learned a great deal from "Darwin's Black Box" and I'm learning quite a bit from this book.
lol what? animal psychology i gotta admit im kinda curious. Ive taken all of those classes as well, however anthroplogy seems to be the only classes that take an indepth look at evolution, and its pros and cons all the others speak of it like it is a fact. Anthropology or at least the prof's call it the THEORY of evolution although most do speak of it as scientific fact and thats because the groundings of the theory are facts.
-
lol what? animal psychology i gotta admit im kinda curious. Ive taken all of those classes as well, however anthroplogy seems to be the only classes that take an indepth look at evolution, and its pros and cons all the others speak of it like it is a fact. Anthropology or at least the prof's call it the THEORY of evolution although most do speak of it as scientific fact and thats because the groundings of the theory are facts.
My animal psychology class was really a study of animal development and behavior from a purely evolutionary standpoint. Probably very similar to anthropology. HATED IT. Did you ever thumb through the course catalog looking for an easy, fun "A"? That's what I was trying to do. :-[
My wife took anthropology, so I can rely on pillow talk. :)
I don't agree that the theory of evolution is grounded on fact. The entire theory is grounded on something that can't hasn't been proved (the origins of life). Go back and look at my first post in this thread:
"2. Evolution scientists have apparently ignored the tenets of their own scientific method: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions."
-
My animal psychology class was really a study of animal development and behavior from a purely evolutionary standpoint. Probably very similar to anthropology. HATED IT. Did you ever thumb through the course catalog looking for an easy, fun "A"? That's what I was trying to do. :-[
My wife took anthropology, so I can rely on pillow talk. :)
I don't agree that the theory of evolution is grounded on fact. The entire theory is grounded on something that can't hasn't been proved (the origins of life). Go back and look at my first post in this thread:
"2. Evolution scientists have apparently ignored the tenets of their own scientific method: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions."
hahah ya i took a greek and roman myths class once and thought dude this sounds cool, one of the worst classes ive ever had.
I will agree with number two but they are in the process of it now, if evolution does in fact happen it would take millions of years so its hard to test this prediction. Number one however, we have seen micro evolution in process this is the fact that I was referring to. It would reason to be that if many micro evolutions happend that eventually a macro evolution would result after enough time, i.e. dogs from wolfs.
And although i must admit im not positive I do believe that all living creatures are put in their relative taxonomic place. Now again is that proof for their placings good enough for you, thats another story but there was proof enough for the scientist to put them there and relate them to other life forms.
Im gonna start another thread about questions i have about God and such you come read mine too.
-
hahah ya i took a greek and roman myths class once and thought dude this sounds cool, one of the worst classes ive ever had.
I will agree with number two but they are in the process of it now, if evolution does in fact happen it would take millions of years so its hard to test this prediction. Number one however, we have seen micro evolution in process this is the fact that I was referring to. It would reason to be that if many micro evolutions happend that eventually a macro evolution would result after enough time, i.e. dogs from wolfs.
And although i must admit im not positive I do believe that all living creatures are put in their relative taxonomic place. Now again is that proof for their placings good enough for you, thats another story but there was proof enough for the scientist to put them there and relate them to other life forms.
Im gonna start another thread about questions i have about God and such you come read mine too.
Tony I think if all life evolved from the same cell/creature, there would be lots of evidence in the fossil record.
The more I read this book the more in awe I become at how complex and perfect so many things are on this planet. I'll be posting more in the coming days (or weeks).
I'll check out your thread.
-
Too bad this book was written by a guy who doesn't know about the fossil record, nor evolution ::)
-
Thanks mang. :)
Improbable natural designs:
1. "The gecko lizard can easily walk along, up, and down any wall, and across any ceiling, without falling. Electron microscopy has revealed that each lizard has about 500 million suction cups on its toes; each about .0000008 of an inch wide.
So Gecko feet are 400 inches wide now ???
-
So Gecko feet are 400 inches wide now ???
Beach Bum has a Ph.D.
-
Beach Bum has a Ph.D.
It's obviously not in math ;)
-
Too bad this book was written by a guy who doesn't know about the fossil record, nor evolution ::)
Im afraid i have to agree BB, if you look at the fossil records many many many animals share very similar characteristics throughout the history of the world. This guy or the points you seem to be making from this guys book seem to nit pick at this and that to build up a larger arguement against evolution but it has no smoking gun. It also doesnt seem to point out whats right with evolution, it seems extremely biased and should be interpreted as such.
-
Im afraid i have to agree BB, if you look at the fossil records many many many animals share very similar characteristics throughout the history of the world. This guy or the points you seem to be making from this guys book seem to nit pick at this and that to build up a larger arguement against evolution but it has no smoking gun. It also doesnt seem to point out whats right with evolution, it seems extremely biased and should be interpreted as such.
Tony similar characteristics do not prove macroevolution.
I don't expect anyone to change their beliefs based on excerpts from this book. I just find it very interesting. Some others do too.
The point of the book is to highlight problems with the theory of evolution.
-
Tony similar characteristics do not prove macroevolution.
I don't expect anyone to change their beliefs based on excerpts from this book. I just find it very interesting. Some others do too.
The point of the book is to highlight problems with the theory of evolution.
As opposed to the 'theory' of talking snakes, magic apples and arcanely conjured rib women..... ::)
Beach Bum, you are simply not qualified to say anything about evolution and if you think you are, head on over to the Biology department at Oxford and MIT and present your case... ::)
-
Tony similar characteristics do not prove macroevolution.
I don't expect anyone to change their beliefs based on excerpts from this book. I just find it very interesting. Some others do too.
The point of the book is to highlight problems with the theory of evolution.
I agree BB but the lack of similar characteristics at the same time does not disprove macroevolution as well. It is the logical application of research that has pointed to Evolution. There are far more findings pointing towards Evolution than away from it which is why it continues to be the number one scientific theory to the existance of life.
-
As opposed to the 'theory' of talking snakes, magic apples and arcanely conjured rib women..... ::)
Beach Bum, you are simply not qualified to say anything about evolution and if you think you are, head on over to the Biology department at Oxford and MIT and present your case... ::)
you still havent commented on my other thread deicide
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=205555.0
here id like to hear what you have to say.
-
As opposed to the 'theory' of talking snakes, magic apples and arcanely conjured rib women..... ::)
Beach Bum, you are simply not qualified to say anything about evolution and if you think you are, head on over to the Biology department at Oxford and MIT and present your case... ::)
::)
-
I agree BB but the lack of similar characteristics at the same time does not disprove macroevolution as well. It is the logical application of research that has pointed to Evolution. There are far more findings pointing towards Evolution than away from it which is why it continues to be the number one scientific theory to the existance of life.
There are certain parts of the theory I agree with (parts of microevolution), certain parts I think are possible (the earth being very old), but there are gaping holes in the theory as well. One of the major problems I have is the entire theory is grounded on a guess. I've maintained that the origin of life on earth (the very beginning) from both the ID and "goo to you" theories sound like science fiction. They both require a great deal of faith.
-
There are certain parts of the theory I agree with (parts of microevolution), certain parts I think are possible (the earth being very old), but there are gaping holes in the theory as well. One of the major problems I have is the entire theory is grounded on a guess. I've maintained that the origin of life on earth (the very beginning) from both the ID and "goo to you" theories sound like science fiction. They both require a great deal of faith.
More so or less than believing in God?
Do you think that you can believe in God and Evolution at the same time?
-
More so or less than believing in God?
Do you think that you can believe in God and Evolution at the same time?
About the same. No one can prove how it all started. The Bible certainly can't. It's not a science book. The Darwinist folks can't prove how it all started either.
Sure it's possible to believe in God and evolution. Personally, I don't think it's consistent, given that the theory of evolution presumes the absence of God creating the earth, etc., but I know some people believe God may have started this whole process with a spark (or something) and just let things evolve over time. That's not my view, but I know plenty of people who believe this.
-
This whole thread is fucking retarded and as I said just prior, the best and brightest of the scientific community from the best and brightest institutions of learning in the world accept evolution as fact; you think they have missed something they have grasped?
-
This whole thread is fucking retarded and as I said just prior, the best and brightest of the scientific community from the best and brightest institutions of learning in the world accept evolution as fact; you think they have missed something they have grasped?
lol and i bet the best and brightest have many among them that believe in God as well, contribute or stfu, you still havent answered my question in the "Question to non believers thread"!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
-
Treasure Hunt
1. "There are over a hundred different proteins in leech saliva. At least one is an anesthetic that completely blocks the would-be pain of their penetration or bite. Another works as an anticoagulant (blood thinner) that keeps the individual's blood chemicals from setting off a clotting cascade as well as keeping the meal from clotting within their own stomachs. A third type of protein prevents platelets from getting sticky and clotting off the wound in another fashion. All accidents of nature that appear to have arrived together? Quite the coincidence? One might speculate that leech bites without the pain reliever would not have boded well for the species."
2. "There's no way to scientifically determine Purpose or the lack of it when it comes to bioprospecting. An intriguing question remains however: Why are there so many useful lifesaving items within our reach? If the Earth were merely a huge collection of dust particles after the big bang, how did it get all these useful products? "
Electricity and Bioluminescence
- Underwater
1. "About 500 aquatic species use electrical fields for mutual identification, scanning the environment, protection, hunting, killing, mating, and communications. Water is a better conductor than air, and electricity compensates for poorer visibility, but the range is usually limited to a few meters.
The most famous example has to be the electric eel. This denizen of the muddy Amazon and Orinoco rivers is not an eel at all, but more related to carp. It looks like an eel, however, and can grow to eight feet in length. Along its sides are three separate electric organs that can deliver a total shock of 350 to 650 volts in 1/500 of a second from its tail. This is enough voltage to stun a human being and kill any prey. Nerve cells stimulate electrical cells, called electroplaques, which are piled on top of each other like a stack of coins. Although each only has a 0.1 volt charge, together they can fire off an enormous charge. They have been known to fry equipment in their tanks. There is no clear explanation in the theory of evolution."
-
Groundskeepers
Insects
1. "Flies will start working on the deceased (or dung) within ten minutes of death--they can sense it somehow--and give births to millions of maggots (miniature eating machines) within a day. They are followed by other types of flies, spiders, and beetles. Millions of maggots will cover a corpse within a few days. Some scavengers eat part of the carcass, and hide part for later. All expel the fecal products, which starts another cycle of smaller scavengers that may be eaten by carnivores and so on down and then back up the food chain. Among the missing links is how spiders eat. They secrete their digestive juices, and once their meal is liquefied, they suck the juice up like a kid with a straw in a soda-pop can. One wonders if predecessors had tried to host of digestive juices, starving all the while, until they genetically found the right one. It would have taken a massive mutation to create these processes and have them all work together so nicely."
SYMBIOSIS
1. "Symbiosis describes an unusually close or mandatory association between two or more unrelated species for their mutual survival. . . . Symbiosis should not be confused with commensalism, which means eating at the same table. For example, there's a worm that rooms with a hermit crab. It even shares the same meals, but as best scientists can tell, they are merely an odd couple. Another extremely bizarre, dot-sized animal called Symbion pandora lives inside a Norwegian lobster's mouth, where it vacuums up passing food particles for itself and reproduces by growing a youngster out its own rear end. It can also produce a dwarf male that is only a brain and reproductive organs. No one has the faintest idea what group of animals this species belongs to our how it came about."
Mutual Dependence
2. "Just the fact the fact that we require oxygen from plants and they require carbon dioxide from us tells us most of life is a symbiotic relationship. Our families have a type of symbiotic relationship, as do our co-workers and teammates. Depending on another species is quite common in Nature."
3. "A tarantula species in Texas maintains a symbiotic relationship with a frog that is small enough to hop between the arachnid's legs. Although the tarantula could easily eat the frog, it seems to know somehow that this particular amphibian will protect its eggs from flies and other insects with a flick of the tongue. Meanwhile, the frog's predators fear the tarantula. A similar relationship exists between a lizard and a scorpion comfort; the lizard benefits from the scorpion's protection."
4. "There are mice that travel around with beetles clamped to their fur like necklaces or brooches. These beetles eat fleas that infect mice habitats--a meal in exchange for protection. Wolbachia bacteria, a common symbiont in insects, can actually change the sex of the host insect's offspring." :o
5. "The vanilla flavoring found in your kitchen cupboard is a consequence of symbiosis. The vanilla bean comes from an orchid plant that can only be pollinated by a tiny stinger-free, flea-sized bee that knows how to go under a minute septum and take the pollen to the next plant. For 300 years Europeans repeatedly failed to grow this plant; now they do it by artificial insemination. Making things even more difficult is the fact there's only a three-hour window when this flower stays open. This special bee and very unique plant had to have originated together."
-
More on Symbiosis
Sine Qua Non Relationships
1. "According to evolutionary theory, insects evolved from carnivores (scavengers) who couldn't digest plants. How would that logically happen? There is strong evidence that some, and maybe most, insects make use of microbes residing in their stomachs to digest those leaves they seem to love so much. Helpful and necessary yeast can be found in the guts of sap-sucking insects. Many insects also have microorganisms in their intestines to detoxify plant chemicals.
Unbelievably, termites, who eat wood from downed trees for sustenance, cannot actually digest wood. They require a protozoan found in their hindgut to break the cellulose down. Without this symbiotic relationship they would starve to death. Newborn termites pick up these protozoa, called mixotrichs, by eating their parents' anal droppings. One wonders how Darwinists can explain how they learned to do this. Termites will also lose their personal protozoa when molting and then recapture new ones from the rear ends of friends and relatives.
This story thickens, however. There is evidence to suggest that the mixotich protozoa cannot get around inside the termite intestines (to eat the wood) without numerous, whiplike tails that actually belong to tiny bacteria attached to their outer wall.
One wonders what the chances are that this three-tiered symbiotic relationship could have happened by accident."
2. "There are many variations on these traditional symbiotic themes and even the simplest defy an evolutionary explanation. One question that readily arises is, how could certain species have ever survived alone or even come about if they needed major help? Or why did they link up with another species in such a way that they could never extricate themselves again without dying? And how did they even find such an extremely compatible partner? For evolution theory to explain these dilemmas, there had to have been uncountable physiological problems, anatomical incompatibilities, and scores of trials and errors until the right pair linked up in the right way. One might liken this to a diabetic trying to find his lost medications in the Sahara Desert.
Science is relatively silent on these issues."
Next up: migration and hibernation.