Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Nordic Superman on August 26, 2008, 03:48:48 AM
-
How do the religious people on here handle that? ???
-
prove it- that's how i handle it. I have a book from the God who says he created us. But i guess that's not good enough for some people.
I've never heard the term The "fact" of evolution.
There never has, no will there ever be, a overall consensus from science on evolution.
-
False, evolution is a fact.
The evidence supporting this natural mechanism for development is well backed up by genetic and fossil evidence.
Evolution has been observed in nature. The theory behind evolution (dominantly Darwin's theory of natural selection) is what can be debated, evolution however is a process that exists.
-
Does evolution explain how man came into being?
Or are these two different subjects? (I am going somewhere with this.)
-
Does evolution explain how man came into being?
Or are these two different subjects? (I am going somewhere with this.)
They are two different subjects. Evolution deals with how we got here after the first life appeared.
-
They are two different subjects. Evolution deals with how we got here after the first life appeared.
According to these scientists, how did the first life appear?
-
According to these scientists, how did the first life appear?
Nobody knows; that is the point: these people are not replacing their ignorance with false certainty. When a scientist doesn't know something he admits, but you have to go on to claim that an old book written by goat herders contains the answer to this question.
-
Does evolution explain how man came into being?
Or are these two different subjects? (I am going somewhere with this.)
Evolution is the process of how the first life form developed to become man, and everything around us. It doesn't explain anything, it's a process. Natural selection by Darwin provides the most accepted theory on explain how evolution works.
According to these scientists, how did the first life appear?
Many theories, organic compounds in the atmosphere charged by lightning. Crystallizing structures (clay, salts etc.) which are self replicating in their very nature might have also provided the kick start. Clay for example replicates with "mutations" which subsequent crystals inherit.
None of the above is a definite fact like evolution is tho.
-
No boday knows; that is the point: these people are not replacing their ignorance with false certainty. When a scientist doesn't know something he admits, but you have to go on to claim that an old book written by goat herders contains the answer to this question.
OK, this subject has been debated on this board a thousand times. And this is where a good debate usually ends-with the above adolescent comments.
I am more than willing to listen to you guys arguements but you are just too hate-filled and ignorant. You spend more time on this board spewing you hatred to anyone who has a belief in God. I don't understand why. If you hate religion, God or the belief of, then why spend so much time here. Let the ones that want to discuss something do so without your vitriol.
-
OK, this subject has been debated on this board a thousand times. And this is where a good debate usually ends-with the above adolescent comments.
I am more than willing to listen to you guys arguements but you are just too hate-filled and ignorant. You spend more time on this board spewing you hatred to anyone who has a belief in God. I don't understand why. If you hate religion, God or the belief of, then why spend so much time here. Let the ones that want to discuss something do so without your vitriol.
I'm guilty for Deicide's patronizing simply because we're both atheists? A bit of a cop-out don't you think?
-
Evolution is the process of how the first life form developed to become man, and everything around us. It doesn't explain anything, it's a process. Natural selection by Darwin provides the most accepted theory on explain how evolution works.
Many theories, organic compounds in the atmosphere charged by lightning. Crystallizing structures (clay, salts etc.) which are self replicating in their very nature might have also provided the kick start. Clay for example replicates with "mutations" which subsequent crystals inherit.
None of the above is a definite fact like evolution is tho.
I highlighted in your comment above what I believe to be your weak points.
What was the first life form? Where did the organic compounds come from? Or lightning? How about crystallizing structures?
What I mean to say is you can't really answer those questions. You just believe they existed with no explanation and then let your arguement stop there. If Darwinist want to believe man eventually came from the "organic compounds" you mentioned above, then fine. But I feel they are leaving out a BIG part of their case. Somehow those "compunds" and "crystals" came into existence.
Every mathematician in the world will tell you that you can't get something from nothing.
-
OK, this subject has been debated on this board a thousand times. And this is where a good debate usually ends-with the above adolescent comments.
I am more than willing to listen to you guys arguements but you are just too hate-filled and ignorant. You spend more time on this board spewing you hatred to anyone who has a belief in God. I don't understand why. If you hate religion, God or the belief of, then why spend so much time here. Let the ones that want to discuss something do so without your vitriol.
I am not patronising anyone; there are things we don't know. Some people can deal with this and others cannot. There is no vitriol, simply a statement of fact...insisting you 'know' is adolescent; do you know how the first life forms came into existence?
-
I highlighted in your comment above what I believe to be your weak points.
What was the first life form? Where did the organic compounds come from? Or lightning? How about crystallizing structures?
What I mean to say is you can't really answer those questions. You just believe they existed with no explanation and then let your arguement stop there. If Darwinist want to believe man eventually came from the "organic compounds" you mentioned above, then fine. But I feel they are leaving out a BIG part of their case. Somehow those "compunds" and "crystals" came into existence.
Every mathematician in the world will tell you that you can't get something from nothing.
First life form was extremely basic. Knowing what it was is an irrelevant. I don't know what colour a T-Rex was, but it definitely did exist.
The building blocks for life existed since the big bang and created in the super nova process ever since. The laws of the universe and nature of crystallizing structures have existed since the big bang or earlier. Dissolve some salt in water, allow it to evaporate slowly and watch the crystals form. That is an inherit process of sodium chloride, no thought goes into the process, it's just due to the chemical properties of that compound and how its atoms behave.
Never said something came from nothing. That's hardly evidence for God (where did GOD come from? Mathematicians will tell you that you can't get something from nothing :D).
Every atom you see around you was probably the result of a huge super nova which imploded on itself causing massive fusion which creates the element you see on Earth. Hydrogen is the original ancestor to all the elements you see on Earth today.
-
First life form was extremely basic. Knowing what it was is an irrelevant. I don't know what colour a T-Rex was, but it definitely did exist.
The building blocks for life existed since the big bang and created in the super nova process ever since. The laws of the universe and nature of crystallizing structures have existed since the big bang or earlier. Dissolve some salt in water, allow it to evaporate slowly and watch the crystals form. That is an inherit process of sodium chloride, no thought goes into the process, it's just due to the chemical properties of that compound and how its atoms behave.
Never said something came from nothing. That's hardly evidence for God (where did GOD come from? Mathematicians will tell you that you can't get something from nothing :D).
Every atom you see around you was probably the result of a huge super nova which imploded on itself causing massive fusion which creates the element you see on Earth. Hydrogen is the original ancestor to all the elements you see on Earth today.
Where did the super nova come from?
You can only explain your belief system in how things evolve. You can't explain how they came to be. Your above explanations are only speculation. You don't know any of that to be fact and you can't prove it. There are some interesting cases that can make the evolution theory seem attractive but when you can't explain how that first life came to be with absolute certainty, your whole entire belief crumbles.
You made the statement about the 'big bang' creating the super nova. Then you chose to say "never said something came from nothing." A little contradicting, wouldn't ya think?! ;)
Look, this is appealing debating this issue but we will never convince each other our beliefs. It completely overwelms my mind when I think about God, his existence, the things he has made and why he made them. Humans' finite mind cannot fathom God and his infinite mind. We are not supposed to yet throughout all of history man has always tried to "figure" God (or life) out.
This arguement is nothing new.
-
I didn't fail. I was never given the chance to fail. Apparently I'm guilty because of Eve, and she's guilty because she was baited by God.
Man did evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees, the genetic evidence alone is enough to state this as fact.
Nordic, your above quote was from the other thread. I don't want to turn that thread into a hate-fest.
Why would you put animals and humans in the same catagory?? Are humans not more significant than animals?? I would feel absolutely worthless in this life if that's all I was. A monkey. What would be the purpose of living if I was no better than that?
I'm very thankful there is something more powerful than me, that loves me and that made me for a purpose.
No wonder our society acts likes animals.
And no, evolution is not a fact. You haven't proven anything. Genetic or otherwise.
-
Where did the super nova come from?
You can only explain your belief system in how things evolve. You can't explain how they came to be. Your above explanations are only speculation. You don't know any of that to be fact and you can't prove it. There are some interesting cases that can make the evolution theory seem attractive but when you can't explain how that first life came to be with absolute certainty, your whole entire belief crumbles.
You made the statement about the 'big bang' creating the super nova. Then you chose to say "never said something came from nothing." A little contradicting, wouldn't ya think?! ;)
Look, this is appealing debating this issue but we will never convince each other our beliefs. It completely overwelms my mind when I think about God, his existence, the things he has made and why he made them. Humans' finite mind cannot fathom God and his infinite mind. We are not supposed to yet throughout all of history man has always tried to "figure" God (or life) out.
This arguement is nothing new.
A super nova occurs when a star has burnt up it's fuel source (Hydrogen). The process is fusions which results in heavier atoms being created through the fusion process. Because these atoms are denser the star shrinks (due to the force of gravity which is the controlling force throughout). It shrinks under its own immense density until it becomes so dense it implodes and in another final set of fusion reactions the star explodes and dies. The fusion process creates all the atoms you see around you and are scatter into space as a huge space dust cloud. Due to gravity again the dust clumps together, creating planets like the Earth. Given the right cocktail of elements and distance from the new sun also created by the process, the planet might potential harbour life, as the Earth does.
The big bang didn't create a super nova. The big bang probably created a huge amount of matter spaced across the universe. Gravity powered this matter to attract to each other in clumps forming stars, which then went on to explode and die (super nova).
I'm dealing with post-big bang. Of course I do not know what came before that.
The properties of crystallizing compounds is fact, I gave you an experiment where you can see it for your own eyes. I don't know that exact information regarding the initial life point. I do feel however that my explanations are more logical than God making man from dust and creating woman from a rib of man, these 2 people breeding and their offspring having incestuous relationships to create the world population.
Do you believe in the conservation of energy? I.e. you get out what you put in etc.
If so, how can God have infinite intelligence, surely that would require infinite energy?
We're not supposed to figure things out? Scientific exploration should never have happened? Would you like to censor scientific exploration? Why do you use a computer if it never should have been?
-
Where did the super nova come from?
You can only explain your belief system in how things evolve. You can't explain how they came to be. Your above explanations are only speculation. You don't know any of that to be fact and you can't prove it. There are some interesting cases that can make the evolution theory seem attractive but when you can't explain how that first life came to be with absolute certainty, your whole entire belief crumbles.
You made the statement about the 'big bang' creating the super nova. Then you chose to say "never said something came from nothing." A little contradicting, wouldn't ya think?! ;)
Look, this is appealing debating this issue but we will never convince each other our beliefs. It completely overwelms my mind when I think about God THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER, his existence, the things he has made and why he made them. Humans' finite mind cannot fathom God THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER'S and his infinite mind. We are not supposed to yet throughout all of history man has always tried to "figure" God THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER(or life) out.
This arguement is nothing new.
FIXED.
-
Nordic, your above quote was from the other thread. I don't want to turn that thread into a hate-fest.
Why would you put animals and humans in the same catagory?? Are humans not more significant than animals?? I would feel absolutely worthless in this life if that's all I was. A monkey. What would be the purpose of living if I was no better than that?
I'm very thankful there is something more powerful than me, that loves me and that made me for a purpose.
No wonder our society acts likes animals.
And no, evolution is not a fact. You haven't proven anything. Genetic or otherwise.
Humans are animals, but exceptional animals. I don't subscribe to Deicide's belief that it would be better without us. We have the ability to appreciate etc. which animals do not. I would rather the Earth cease to exist than humans to be removed.
Humans are more significant, but like I said, we're animals, albeit EXCEPTIONAL ones with the ability of reason.
I could give you examples of societies acting like animals due to islamic law, which also prescribes monotheistic belief in an all powerful creator.
-
Nordic, your above quote was from the other thread. I don't want to turn that thread into a hate-fest.
Why would you put animals and humans in the same catagory?? Are humans not more significant than animals?? I would feel absolutely worthless in this life if that's all I was. A monkey. What would be the purpose of living if I was no better than that?
I'm very thankful there is something more powerful than me, that loves me and that made me for a purpose.
No wonder our society acts likes animals.
And no, evolution is not a fact. You haven't proven anything. Genetic or otherwise.
Just because something makes you feel good, doesn't make it true by a long shot. Religious people just don't get that and thank for explaining why you believe what you believe. The universe is not here for you.
-
Humans are animals, but exceptional animals. I don't subscribe to Deicide's belief that it would be better without us. We have the ability to appreciate etc. which animals do not. I would rather the Earth cease to exist than humans to be removed.
Humans are more significant, but like I said, we're animals, albeit EXCEPTIONAL ones with the ability of reason.
I could give you examples of societies acting like animals due to islamic law, which also prescribes monotheistic belief in an all powerful creator.
Uhmm..Nordic, you are putting words in my mouth; I never said it would be better without us; at best I have said it makes no difference whether we are here or not.
-
Uhmm..Nordic, you are putting words in my mouth; I never said it would be better without us; at best I have said it makes no difference whether we are here or not.
Just assuming after seeing your agree with this:
I agree. Can't wait till we are all gone so the planet can once again restore itself to greatness.
But yes, it doesn't make one inch of difference, you're right.
The unconscious universe could however result in an asteroid which could destroy Earth, but the conscious reasoning abilities of homo sapiens could develop technology to stop that happening 8)
-
Just because something makes you feel good, doesn't make it true by a long shot. Religious people just don't get that and thank for explaining why you believe what you believe. The universe is not here for you.
And just because you hate something doesn't make it untrue. Now, shhhhh, adults are speaking.
Don't you have puppy to kick or a child's bicycle to steal. :o
-
And just because you hate something doesn't make it untrue. Now, shhhhh, adults are speaking.
Don't you have puppy to kick or a child's bicycle to steal. :o
Adults don't believe in fairy tales so you must not be talking about yourself.
-
Now, shhhhh, adults are speaking.
I don't know why, but the imagination of Deicide reading that kind of makes me giggle. ;D
-
prove it- that's how i handle it. I have a book from the God who says he created us. But i guess that's not good enough for some people.
Really? Where'd you get it? The Bible has been changed over time, especially when it has been translated and re-translated. It was written, and the various books of the Bible pulled together, by man. Whether it was divinely inspired is questionable and not proven.
By the way, the Muslims also have a book from the God who says he created them and the Jews from their God? Is that the same God? If so, how come the books are so inconsistent and contradictory?
Evolution happens all the time and is right in front of our faces. Viruses and bacteria change and mutate quickly to deal with their environment. Why do you think we have so many bacteria that are now resistant to antibiotics? The ones that could resist the antibiotics survived and produced new offspring that were hardier than the rest, while the others died out.
Evolution explains how life changes and how man came to be. Debating evolution and the Bible isn't the same thing as debating the origin of life vs. creationism. There is no consensus among scientists about how life began. They are pretty much in agreement, however, about the reality of evolution.
-
Darwin's Intelligent Design
-
Evolution is a game among scientes and their ego, when we are kids we say" my dad can beat up your dad" The evolutionist ego goes like this..... person A, see this rock its ten thousand years old.
person B, well my rock is 100 thousand years old.
Person A, darn it I have to beat him, what should I do, runs to the back yard and pick up a rock, ya this will do.
Person A, breakthrouh, my rock is one million years old.
etc. etc. etc
etc, etc, etc,
Finally person B, my rock is 50 million years old
Person A, my rock is 100 million years old.
etc, etc.
In my whole life I've always read 65 million years for dinos. 65 million consistantly in every book evEry tv show, the other day for the first time I saw a show that said 65.5 million years old, I said to my self, wow, it got 500 000 years older since I was kid, the fact is the numbers keep growing and it doesn't matter the number they tag on things because no one questions them.
WHAT AN INCREDIBLE THEORY
-
Evolution is a game among scientes and their ego, when we are kids we say" my dad can beat up your dad" The evolutionist ego goes like this..... person A, see this rock its ten thousand years old.
person B, well my rock is 100 thousand years old.
Person A, darn it I have to beat him, what should I do, runs to the back yard and pick up a rock, ya this will do.
Person A, breakthrouh, my rock is one million years old.
etc. etc. etc
etc, etc, etc,
Finally person B, my rock is 50 million years old
Person A, my rock is 100 million years old.
etc, etc.
In my whole life I've always read 65 million years for dinos. 65 million consistantly in every book evEry tv show, the other day for the first time I saw a show that said 65.5 million years old, I said to my self, wow, it got 500 000 years older since I was kid, the fact is the numbers keep growing and it doesn't matter the number they tag on things because no one questions them.
WHAT AN INCREDIBLE THEORY
Just stick to what you know: juicing. ::)
-
Evolution is a game among scientes and their ego, when we are kids we say" my dad can beat up your dad" The evolutionist ego goes like this..... person A, see this rock its ten thousand years old.
person B, well my rock is 100 thousand years old.
Person A, darn it I have to beat him, what should I do, runs to the back yard and pick up a rock, ya this will do.
Person A, breakthrouh, my rock is one million years old.
etc. etc. etc
etc, etc, etc,
Finally person B, my rock is 50 million years old
Person A, my rock is 100 million years old.
etc, etc.
In my whole life I've always read 65 million years for dinos. 65 million consistantly in every book evEry tv show, the other day for the first time I saw a show that said 65.5 million years old, I said to my self, wow, it got 500 000 years older since I was kid, the fact is the numbers keep growing and it doesn't matter the number they tag on things because no one questions them.
WHAT AN INCREDIBLE THEORY
Because it is science and new investigation continues to go on with new tools, new theories and facts come up.
Unlike religion, where facts and investigation have no bearing at all and nut jobs religious leaders like Falwell and Robertson proclaim things like, "God spoke to me and said that he would take me up if you don't donate money to my school" or ""If you go all the way back to the days just following creation, men lived nine hundred years or more." (Talk about pulling a number out of your ass.)
-
Evolution is a game among scientes and their ego, when we are kids we say" my dad can beat up your dad" The evolutionist ego goes like this..... person A, see this rock its ten thousand years old.
person B, well my rock is 100 thousand years old.
Person A, darn it I have to beat him, what should I do, runs to the back yard and pick up a rock, ya this will do.
Person A, breakthrouh, my rock is one million years old.
etc. etc. etc
etc, etc, etc,
Finally person B, my rock is 50 million years old
Person A, my rock is 100 million years old.
etc, etc.
In my whole life I've always read 65 million years for dinos. 65 million consistantly in every book evEry tv show, the other day for the first time I saw a show that said 65.5 million years old, I said to my self, wow, it got 500 000 years older since I was kid, the fact is the numbers keep growing and it doesn't matter the number they tag on things because no one questions them.
WHAT AN INCREDIBLE THEORY
This is an incredibly stupid post :D
Such ignorance to scientific method and technology.
Hasn't the interpretation of the Bible changed over the years? Which interpretation is correct? Yours or someone from 500 years ago?
-
This is an incredibly stupid post :D
Such ignorance to scientific method and technology.
Hasn't the interpretation of the Bible changed over the years? Which interpretation is correct? Yours or someone from 500 years ago?
You guys are the ignorant ones bringing this to the religious boards like its suppose to be a slap in the face, your evolution is not only stupid and non-ligic to me but to millions of others so when a large enough group believes in something its hardly ignorant, but you make fun of our opinion when I think evolution doesn't have a shred of observable evidance. It ain't personal, just accept the fact that you believe in evolution by faith only, no different then believing in God by faith, if you call your dating methods proof then we will call are Bible proof because of the witnesses in them and not to mention that over a million words with hundreds of authors without one mistake, lack of measurments or condradiction, BTW the dead sea scrolls date back way further then 500 years and they have the same data to the last word the same as the source of scriptures we have been reading for the last few centuries. And your right it was a stupid post, but it got my point across, call me all the names you want but evolution isn't created by solid evidance, only perpectives from individuals who choose to see things in a way that their imaginations carry them.
-
" to suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin
The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to BASIC questions. Some well meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man's questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory-it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science. Here are some BASIC questions for you evolutionists.
1. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia)
2. When, where WHY and how did life come from dead matter?
3. When, where WHY and how did life learn to reproduce?
4. Why would any plant/animal want to reproduce since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease chances of survival. In other words, does the individual have the drive to survive or the species and either way how was this drive learned?
5. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a commmon creator instead of a common ancestor?
6. When, where, WHY and how did:
a. single celled plants become multicelled plants? Where are the two and three celled intermediates?
b. Single celled animals evolve?
c. fish change to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds? (the lungs, bones, eyes,
reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering etc.. are all very different) how
did the intermediates survive?
7. which of these things evolved first and how long did it work without the others?
a. The digestive system? the food to be digested? the appetite? the ability to find and eat food? the
digestive juices or the bodies resistance to it's own digestive juices?
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability too?
c. The lungs? the mucus lining to protect them? the perfect mix of gasses to be breathed in?
d. DNA? or the RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e. The immune system? or the need for it.
when you can answer some of these basic questions then and only then can evolution and more specifically the absense of an intelligent creator be given credibility.
-
-
" to suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin
The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to BASIC questions. Some well meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man's questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory-it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science. Here are some BASIC questions for you evolutionists.
1. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia)
2. When, where WHY and how did life come from dead matter?
3. When, where WHY and how did life learn to reproduce?
4. Why would any plant/animal want to reproduce since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease chances of survival. In other words, does the individual have the drive to survive or the species and either way how was this drive learned?
5. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a commmon creator instead of a common ancestor?
6. When, where, WHY and how did:
a. single celled plants become multicelled plants? Where are the two and three celled intermediates?
b. Single celled animals evolve?
c. fish change to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds? (the lungs, bones, eyes,
reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering etc.. are all very different) how
did the intermediates survive?
7. which of these things evolved first and how long did it work without the others?
a. The digestive system? the food to be digested? the appetite? the ability to find and eat food? the
digestive juices or the bodies resistance to it's own digestive juices?
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability too?
c. The lungs? the mucus lining to protect them? the perfect mix of gasses to be breathed in?
d. DNA? or the RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e. The immune system? or the need for it.
when you can answer some of these basic questions then and only then can evolution and more specifically the absense of an intelligent creator be given credibility.
The immune system, the eye, DNA, all of this has been explained in uncountable numbers of papers and books by professional scientists. You can go read one if you like.
Additionally 'why' questions are almost always invented and lack any real substance; humans have a tendency to attribute motive and reason to the natural universe where there is neither nor.
-
You guys are the ignorant ones bringing this to the religious boards like its suppose to be a slap in the face, your evolution is not only stupid and non-ligic to me but to millions of others so when a large enough group believes in something its hardly ignorant, but you make fun of our opinion when I think evolution doesn't have a shred of observable evidance. It ain't personal, just accept the fact that you believe in evolution by faith only, no different then believing in God by faith, if you call your dating methods proof then we will call are Bible proof because of the witnesses in them and not to mention that over a million words with hundreds of authors without one mistake, lack of measurments or condradiction, BTW the dead sea scrolls date back way further then 500 years and they have the same data to the last word the same as the source of scriptures we have been reading for the last few centuries. And your right it was a stupid post, but it got my point across, call me all the names you want but evolution isn't created by solid evidance, only perpectives from individuals who choose to see things in a way that their imaginations carry them.
" to suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin
The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to BASIC questions. Some well meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man's questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory-it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science. Here are some BASIC questions for you evolutionists.
1. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia)
2. When, where WHY and how did life come from dead matter?
3. When, where WHY and how did life learn to reproduce?
4. Why would any plant/animal want to reproduce since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease chances of survival. In other words, does the individual have the drive to survive or the species and either way how was this drive learned?
5. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a commmon creator instead of a common ancestor?
6. When, where, WHY and how did:
a. single celled plants become multicelled plants? Where are the two and three celled intermediates?
b. Single celled animals evolve?
c. fish change to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds? (the lungs, bones, eyes,
reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering etc.. are all very different) how
did the intermediates survive?
7. which of these things evolved first and how long did it work without the others?
a. The digestive system? the food to be digested? the appetite? the ability to find and eat food? the
digestive juices or the bodies resistance to it's own digestive juices?
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability too?
c. The lungs? the mucus lining to protect them? the perfect mix of gasses to be breathed in?
d. DNA? or the RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e. The immune system? or the need for it.
when you can answer some of these basic questions then and only then can evolution and more specifically the absense of an intelligent creator be given credibility.
Evolution, is a fact. Evolution is NOT a theory, it is a process best explained by Darwin's THEORY of natural selection.
Nice one for taking Darwin's quote out of context, I will now supply the full quote:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
1. Nothing to do with Evolution, that's a question of physics.
2. I've tried to explain that here.
3. / 4. It didn't "learn" to reproduce. In the very early primitive lifeforms some organisms interacted in a way which would produce sexual reproduction (via natural selection). These organisms survived because reproduction has many biological benefits. The main benefit is that reproduction allows variation which creates genetic diversity which can lead to advantages in natural selection over asexual organisms. It wasn't learned.
5. Ridiculous. Genetic evidence alone is enough to prove evolution is indeed fact.
6. a. b. c. Evolution has occurred over half a billion years. The amount of possible generations during that amount of time with very slight variations is immense. The changes are so subtle in each generation they appear not to exist.
7. The answers to most of these is that they gradually evolved simultaneously.
You do realize however that the consistency of the air has changed on Earth over time? During the dinosaurs years there was much more free oxygen in the air which allowed organisms to be huge, not only the dinosaurs themselves, but huge foot long dragon flies etc.
Remember: evolution is a fact (no matter what you say), natural selection is Darwin's theory explaining the process of evolution.
-
Evolution, is a fact. Evolution is NOT a theory, it is a process best explained by Darwin's THEORY of natural selection.
Nice one for taking Darwin's quote out of context, I will now supply the full quote:
1. Nothing to do with Evolution, that's a question of physics.
2. I've tried to explain that here.
3. / 4. It didn't "learn" to reproduce. In the very early primitive lifeforms some organisms interacted in a way which would produce sexual reproduction (via natural selection). These organisms survived because reproduction has many biological benefits. The main benefit is that reproduction allows variation which creates genetic diversity which can lead to advantages in natural selection over asexual organisms. It wasn't learned.
5. Ridiculous. Genetic evidence alone is enough to prove evolution is indeed fact.
6. a. b. c. Evolution has occurred over half a billion years. The amount of possible generations during that amount of time with very slight variations is immense. The changes are so subtle in each generation they appear not to exist.
7. The answers to most of these is that they gradually evolved simultaneously.
You do realize however that the consistency of the air has changed on Earth over time? During the dinosaurs years there was much more free oxygen in the air which allowed organisms to be huge, not only the dinosaurs themselves, but huge foot long dragon flies etc.
Remember: evolution is a fact (no matter what you say), natural selection is Darwin's theory explaining the process of evolution.
You are quite well informed for a businessy kind of guy; very impressive.
-
You are quite well informed for a businessy kind of guy; very impressive.
Learning about evolution etc. is way more enjoying than my work (I did love programming at one point, but I've hit a mega-plateau), so I have to say it's easy to learn this stuff when you enjoy doing it.
-
Learning about evolution etc. is way more enjoying than my work (I did love programming at one point, but I've hit a mega-plateau), so I have to say it's easy to learn this stuff when you enjoy doing it.
You're still so young; go into another, more interesting field.
-
You're still so young; go into another, more interesting field.
Yeah, I think it's looking that I will be forced (thank Wotan, I'm not very proactive at the moment) due to financial restraints.
Social economic evolution in progress I suppose ;D
-
Yeah, I think it's looking that I will be forced (thank Wotan, I'm not very proactive at the moment) due to financial restraints.
Social economic evolution in progress I suppose ;D
Become NordicSuperman++ ;D
-
Become NordicSuperman++ ;D
lol very smart 8) :)
-
prove it- that's how i handle it. I have a book from the God who says he created us. But i guess that's not good enough for some people.
done! 8)
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc
I've never heard the term The "fact" of evolution. There never has, no will there ever be, a overall consensus from science on evolution.
Evolution is both fact and theory. In science, fact and theory are 2 different things. A theory does not become fact after enough evidence comes forth. Rather, scientific theories are models/ explanations used to describe natural phenomena based on the facts we have.
Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. The theory of evolution explains the mechanism of this phenomenon.
-
Does evolution explain how man came into being? Or are these two different subjects? (I am going somewhere with this.)
You're thinking of abiogenesis. It is a separate branch of science from evolution. Abiogenesis seeks to explain the origin of life whereas evolution deals with what happened after life originated.
-
According to these scientists, how did the first life appear?
Scientists believe the earliest signs of life appeared 600 million years after the earth formed. These life forms were possibly derived from self-reproducing RNA molecules. The replication of these organisms required resources which soon became limited, resulting in natural selection. DNA molecules then took over as the main replicators. They began to develop inside enclosed membranes which provided a stable environment for replication: proto-cells. 100 million years passed before cells resembling prokaryotes appeared. These organisms were chemoautotrophs. Another 900 million years passed before photosynthesizing cyanobacteria evolved which produced oxygen. The oxygen concentration in the atmosphere subsequently rised. Eventually, more complex cells began to appear: the eukaryotes. After 2 billion years, the first multicellular organisms evolved. Natural selection fueled the evolutionary radiation that occured during the last 1 billion years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
-
Where did the super nova come from? You can only explain your belief system in how things evolve. You can't explain how they came to be.
The prevailing theory is that quantum fluctuations in the vacuum of space were pulled far apart during the Big Bang. Normally these fluctuations result in pairs of virtual particles that come into existence briefly and then annihilate each other. However, the rapid expansion of the universe during the Big Bang separated these particle pairs before they had time to couple thus making them 'real.' The particles created by quantum fluctuations have the ability to become either matter or energy.
American Scientist (peer reviewed journal)
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/observing-the-beginning-of-time
Matter and energy were interchangeable during the earliest moments after the Big Bang. Colliding photons formed particle-pairs, and matter/anti-matter annihilation created photons. The very instant these photons were created, they immediately converted into matter and vice versa. It wasn't until 10-12 sec. after the Big Bang that quarks and electrons were able to exist separate from photons.
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.html
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/early.html
As space expanded, it began to cool down. The universe entered the nucleosynthesis epoch during which the first hydrogen atoms began to form. However, the distribution of hydrogen gas in the universe was not homogenous. Over time, regions of higher density collapsed and coalesced due to gravitational forces. These clouds of collapsing interstellar hydrogen were so massive that the gravitational forces at the center caused the atoms to ignite in a process called fusion. Thus the first stars in our universe were born.
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_stel.html
Your above explanations are only speculation. You don't know any of that to be fact and you can't prove it. There are some interesting cases that can make the evolution theory seem attractive but when you can't explain how that first life came to be with absolute certainty, your whole entire belief crumbles.
There is such as thing as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If we follow your logic, then a large percentage of criminals - murderers, thieves, rapists, etc - should be let free since we cannot know with absolute certainty if they are guilty.
-
You guys are the ignorant ones bringing this to the religious boards like its suppose to be a slap in the face, your evolution is not only stupid and non-ligic to me but to millions of others so when a large enough group believes in something its hardly ignorant
argumentum ad populum ;)
"a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it."
but you make fun of our opinion when I think evolution doesn't have a shred of observable evidance.
oh no?
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg)
(http://starklab.slu.edu/Bio104/HorseEvol.jpg)
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/164pic1.jpg)
(http://universe-review.ca/I10-72-Tiktaalik.jpg)
It ain't personal, just accept the fact that you believe in evolution by faith only, no different then believing in God by faith, if you call your dating methods proof then we will call are Bible proof because of the witnesses in them and not to mention that over a million words with hundreds of authors without one mistake, lack of measurments or condradiction, BTW the dead sea scrolls date back way further then 500 years and they have the same data to the last word the same as the source of scriptures we have been reading for the last few centuries. And your right it was a stupid post, but it got my point across, call me all the names you want but evolution isn't created by solid evidance, only perpectives from individuals who choose to see things in a way that their imaginations carry them.
Your analogy is flawed. Science is built upon facts while religion necessitates faith in the absence of facts. There is a wealth of evidence that supports evolution. Evolutionists use the fossil record, stratigraphy, radiometric dating, embryology, comparative homology, and molecular biology to study evolution. Each of these fields of science arrived at the same conclusion independently of each other. The law uses a similar process called forensics to piece together events that occurred in a crime.
-
Good job NeoSeminole. Hopefully it will keep the fundies from acting up again.
-
prove it- that's how i handle it. I have a book from the God who says he created us. But i guess that's not good enough for some people.
I've never heard the term The "fact" of evolution.
There never has, no will there ever be, a overall consensus from science on evolution.
don't believe everything that you read.
-
Evolution in a species I totally buy- a bird growing a longer bill because the inscets it hunts have been driven deeper into the trunk of a tree because of climate changes over a period of time. On this basis I totally agree evolution is a fact. As far as a one celled animal becomming a human over millions of years, it never happened and was never and will never be proven- fact
-
Evolution in a species I totally buy- a bird growing a longer bill because the inscets it hunts have been driven deeper into the trunk of a tree because of climate changes over a period of time. On this basis I totally agree evolution is a fact. As far as a one celled animal becomming a human over millions of years, it never happened and was never and will never be proven- fact
thank you for that brilliant rebuttal complete with sources to back up your claim. ::)
-
thank you for that brilliant rebuttal complete with sources to back up your claim. ::)
I see your the only Dork on this thread that has the time or desire to search out proof sources. Dont take it so serious chief, its only the internet ;)
-
I see your the only Dork on this thread that has the time or desire to search out proof sources. Dont take it so serious chief, its only the internet
ha ha ha, I assure you I'm not getting worked up over the uneducated opinion of an anonymous poster. I don't exactly come to Getbig to discuss evolution. It's a subject I happen to like and enjoy studying. So when I see an idiot such as yourself say "it never happened" as if your opinion holds any weight compared to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, I can't help but express how silly your post is. ;)
-
ha ha ha, I assure you I'm not getting worked up over the uneducated opinion of an anonymous poster. I don't exactly come to Getbig to discuss evolution. It's a subject I happen to like and enjoy studying. So when I see an idiot such as yourself say "it never happened" as if your opinion holds any weight compared to the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, I can't help but express how silly your post is. ;)
No need to meltdown cupcake, you've obviously got your pantys in a bunch, but I honestly didnt mean to upset you. It amazes me how identical athesis and religious zelots are. Both feel the need to try and convince the world they are correct and both have some evidence but no smoking gun. That aside, my statement is still true until proven wrong, evolution from a one celled creature to a human didnt happen because it was never proven, at least no more then religion has. Science has proven evolution in a species but thats about it and I totally agree with it. So go site some proof sources and see if surfing the net for a few hours dig anything up for you ;)
-
No need to meltdown cupcake, you've obviously got your pantys in a bunch, but I honestly didnt mean to upset you. It amazes me how identical athesis and religious zelots are. Both feel the need to try and convince the world they are correct and both have some evidence but no smoking gun. That aside, my statement is still true until proven wrong, evolution from a one celled creature to a human didnt happen because it was never proven, at least no more then religion has. Science has proven evolution in a species but thats about it and I totally agree with it. So go site some proof sources and see if surfing the net for a few hours dig anything up for you
no meltdown, just laughing at your ignorance. Evolution has been demonstrated and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. Just b/c the mechanism for evolution is too complicated for you to grasp doesn't mean it never happened.
By the way, calling someone cupcake and saying he or she has their panties is old and played out. Come up with something original. ;)
-
no meltdown, just laughing at your ignorance. Evolution has been demonstrated and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. Just b/c the mechanism for evolution is too complicated for you to grasp doesn't mean it never happened.
By the way, calling someone cupcake and saying he or she has their panties is old and played out. Come up with something original. ;)
Actually evolution from one species to another had never been proven "cupcake" Not one scientist has been able to give solid evidence that a one celled animal evolved into man. Just as no one has been able to prove the Jesus is the son of God or if their really is a God. So "untwist your pantys" sweet tits it will be ok :D
-
how convenient...any response to humungous posts and your melting down....I think he might be squadfather.
-
Actually evolution from one species to another had never been proven "cupcake"
actually, you're wrong. Evolution of a new species has been observed. For example, several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy such as Primula kewensis and non-polyploidy like S. malheurensis. A new species of mosquito, the molestus form, has speciated from Culex pipiens. There is also documentation of speciation in mammals such as mice.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations
Not one scientist has been able to give solid evidence that a one celled animal evolved into man.
you're wrong again. There is evidence that supports common descent from a single-celled organism. All life on Earth shares a universal genetic code. This tells us that every organism is related. In the same way as humans and chimpanzees are related except on a grander scale, we can trace our ancestry back to the last universal common ancestor (LUCA).
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html
Just as no one has been able to prove the Jesus is the son of God or if their really is a God.
finally, something we can both agree on.
-
actually, you're wrong. Evolution of a new species has been observed. For example, several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy such as Primula kewensis and non-polyploidy like S. malheurensis. A new species of mosquito, the molestus form, has speciated from Culex pipiens. There is also documentation of speciation in mammals such as mice.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations
you're wrong again. There is evidence that supports common descent from a single-celled organism. All life on Earth shares a universal genetic code. This tells us that every organism is related. In the same way as humans and chimpanzees are related except on a grander scale, we can trace our ancestry back to the last universal common ancestor (LUCA).
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html
finally, something we can both agree on.
I think you have the word Macro mistaken for Micro braniac ;), a mosquito producing another musquito with a variation is a miocro evolution which by the way every 6 day creationist on the planet would agree with :P
-
I think you have the word Macro mistaken for Micro braniac, a mosquito producing another musquito with a variation is a miocro evolution which by the way every 6 day creationist on the planet would agree with
microevolution = change in the gene pool within a population
macroevolution = change that results in the formation of a new species
"mosquito" is not a species just like "cat" is not a species. So saying a mosquito producing another mosquito is an example of microevolution is erroneous. By the way, thanks for the compliment. ;D
-
actually, you're wrong. Evolution of a new species has been observed. For example, several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy such as Primula kewensis and non-polyploidy like S. malheurensis. A new species of mosquito, the molestus form, has speciated from Culex pipiens. There is also documentation of speciation in mammals such as mice.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations
you're wrong again. There is evidence that supports common descent from a single-celled organism. All life on Earth shares a universal genetic code. This tells us that every organism is related. In the same way as humans and chimpanzees are related except on a grander scale, we can trace our ancestry back to the last universal common ancestor (LUCA).
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html
finally, something we can both agree on.
Massive cut an paste skills, If I spent some time on line im sure that I could find an article the refutes this info, but I dont have the time or the desire. I have yet to hear a news flash that either one of these articles are solid proof of evolution.
-
Massive cut an paste skills, If I spent some time on line im sure that I could find an article the refutes this info, but I dont have the time or the desire. I have yet to hear a news flash that either one of these articles are solid proof of evolution.
ha ha ha, epic denial of reality. I paraphrased the articles to save you time from reading. If you have an issue with something, then you're more than welcome to check my sources. Talk Origins has won many honors and praises from the most prestigious names in the scientific community including Science Magazine, Scientific American, Smithsonian Institute, and National Academy of Sciences.
Spare me your lame excuse about not having the time or desire looking online for articles. The actual reason why you don't refute what I posted is b/c you cannot. In simpler terms, you're talking out of your ass. ;)
-
Massive cut an paste skills, If I spent some time on line im sure that I could find an article the refutes this info, but I dont have the time or the desire. I have yet to hear a news flash that either one of these articles are solid proof of evolution.
u get your facts from a news flash?
-
ha ha ha, epic denial of reality. I paraphrased the articles to save you time from reading. If you have an issue with something, then you're more than welcome to check my sources. Talk Origins has won many honors and praises from the most prestigious names in the scientific community including Science Magazine, Scientific American, Smithsonian Institute, and National Academy of Sciences.
Spare me your lame excuse about not having the time or desire looking online for articles. The actual reason why you don't refute what I posted is b/c you cannot. In simpler terms, you're talking out of your ass. ;)
I do appreciate the paraphrase! danka! Once again I have yet to see a headline stating that "talk origins" has solved the mystery of evolution! Neither article proves evolution from a one celled animal to man- (which never happend).
Well, I guess I could find the time, but the desire just isn't there. I'm comfortable with my personal beliefs so I dint really feel the need to prove my point. On the other hand until science comes up with a smoking gun aka the missing link evolution of man from a one celled animal is just a theory.
u get your facts from a news flash?
No, of course not but if these 2 articles were undeniable proof of evolution dint you think it make head lines? I do.
-
Look its common sense that no scientific community in any type of field regards the evolution theory anything more then a theory, there are a few nut cases out there that won't settle for anyone thinking it isn't fact, but there are also people out there that think Elvis is still alive. Actually the strength of the evolution theory is in fact shortening due to rise in oppisition, at one point no one dared challanged it, it looked good and people took it serious and now its a big joke, people don't even care about the subject anymore,so who cares? The numbers are so ridiculous that the differance between 50 000 or 5 billion doesn't concern anyone.
-
I do appreciate the paraphrase! danka! Once again I have yet to see a headline stating that "talk origins" has solved the mystery of evolution! Neither article proves evolution from a one celled animal to man- (which never happend).
Well, I guess I could find the time, but the desire just isn't there. I'm comfortable with my personal beliefs so I dint really feel the need to prove my point. On the other hand until science comes up with a smoking gun aka the missing link evolution of man from a one celled animal is just a theory.
ugh, I already explained this earlier. In science, fact and theory are 2 different things. A theory can never become fact no matter how much evidence comes forth. Your insistence that evolution never occurred b/c it hasn't been proven merely reflects your ignorance on the subject. Gravity is also a scientific theory. I suppose you don't believe in gravity either b/c it hasn't been proven?
-
ugh, I already explained this earlier. In science, fact and theory are 2 different things. A theory can never become fact no matter how much evidence comes forth. Your insistence that evolution never occurred b/c it hasn't been proven merely reflects your ignorance on the subject. Gravity is also a scientific theory. I suppose you don't believe in gravity either b/c it hasn't been proven?
You actually believe that something microscopic exploted and created matter in an instanced and this matter that was created evolved into one single chemical, as in a hydrogen atom, then somehow this hydrogen atom produced all the chemicals from the table of element including Gold, Silver, Oxygen, carbon, plutonium, and uranium via chemical evolution? ::) ???
If this is provable then so is Santa Clause. How many billions was it again, how about the evolution of the planet and the stars and all the steller compounds found in space, and of course some non living matter turned in an organic life form obviously without anytype of observations or traces of this taken place, chemical broth turning into single celled omeoba and microscopic bacteria, I'm sorry did you observe this? NO, so how do you know this took place, it clearly doesn't happen today. Slow process huh? Macro evolution?, I know of scientest that preech with the outmost intensity the theory of evolution and they themselves will still admit this has never been observed, so ....................
WHAT PROOF ARE YOU REFERRING TOO SMART GUY, BECAUSE I ALSO HAVE POOF OF THE JFK ASSINATION.
-
You actually believe that something microscopic exploted and created matter in an instanced and this matter that was created evolved into one single chemical, as in a hydrogen atom, then somehow this hydrogen atom produced all the chemicals from the table of element including Gold, Silver, Oxygen, carbon, plutonium, and uranium via chemical evolution?
for the most part, yes. I know you'll probably just laugh out of ignorance at my response. So I figured I would beat you to the punch and counter your future reply with a detailed essay defending my belief.
The prevailing theory is that quantum fluctuations in the vacuum of space were pulled far apart during the Big Bang. Normally these fluctuations result in pairs of virtual particles that come into existence briefly and then annihilate each other. However, the rapid expansion of the universe during the Big Bang separated these particle pairs before they had time to couple thus making them 'real.' The particles created by quantum fluctuations have the ability to become either matter or energy.
American Scientist
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/observing-the-beginning-of-time
Matter and energy were interchangeable during the earliest moments after the Big Bang. Colliding photons formed particle-pairs, and matter/anti-matter annihilation created photons. The very instant these photons were created, they immediately converted into matter and vice versa. It wasn't until 10-12 sec. after the Big Bang that quarks and electrons were able to exist separate from photons.
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.html
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/early.html
As space expanded, it began to cool down. The universe entered the nucleosynthesis epoch during which the first hydrogen atoms began to form. However, the distribution of hydrogen gas in the universe was not homogenous. Over time, regions of higher density collapsed and coalesced due to gravitational forces. These clouds of collapsing interstellar hydrogen were so massive that the gravitational forces at the center caused the atoms to ignite in a process called fusion. Thus the first stars in our universe were born.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s249630.htm
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/COMPLETE/learn/star_and_planet_formation.html
The process of fusion produces many new elements. Stars fuse hydrogen to helium, and helium to heavier atoms. Heavier elements are formed in denser areas of the star. These elements were blasted out into space when the earliest stars went supernova. There is evidence that heavy-element formation occurs in stars.
"observations in red giants of one kind of nucleus – 99technetium – provides direct evidence that heavy-element formation really does occur in stars today."
Wright Center for Science Education
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_stel_6.html
The newly formed elements that were casted into space existed in the form of rocks and gas clouds, which coalesced to form planets, moons, and other celestial bodies. It was only a matter of time before the elements released from stars gathered on one of the planets that is hospitable for life, such as Earth, and combined to form molecules that combined to form amino acids, which evolved into very simple cells, and thus life began.
cliffs:
the Big Bang caused the rapid expansion of our universe, which led to the heterogeneous distribution of hydrogen clouds that birthed stars and ultimately led to everything you see around you.
If this is provable then so is Santa Clause. How many billions was it again, how about the evolution of the planet and the stars and all the steller compounds found in space, and of course some non living matter turned in an organic life form obviously without anytype of observations or traces of this taken place, chemical broth turning into single celled omeoba and microscopic bacteria, I'm sorry did you observe this? NO, so how do you know this took place, it clearly doesn't happen today. Slow process huh? Macro evolution?, I know of scientest that preech with the utmost intensity the theory of evolution and they themselves will still admit this has never been observed, so ....................
The process you refer to by which life originated from non-living material is called abiogenesis. There are several theories that attempt to explain this process. Whether these theories are correct or not is irrelevant. The fact remains abiogenesis did occur. We had to come from somewhere. As for evolution, I already provided plenty of evidence supporting the theory.
WHAT PROOF ARE YOU REFERRING TOO SMART GUY, BECAUSE I ALSO HAVE POOF OF THE JFK ASSINATION.
refer to post #41, 43, 44, 45, and 56.
-
You actually believe that something microscopic exploted and created matter in an instanced and this matter that was created evolved into one single chemical, as in a hydrogen atom, then somehow this hydrogen atom produced all the chemicals from the table of element including Gold, Silver, Oxygen, carbon, plutonium, and uranium via chemical evolution? ::) ???
If this is provable then so is Santa Clause. How many billions was it again, how about the evolution of the planet and the stars and all the steller compounds found in space, and of course some non living matter turned in an organic life form obviously without anytype of observations or traces of this taken place, chemical broth turning into single celled omeoba and microscopic bacteria, I'm sorry did you observe this? NO, so how do you know this took place, it clearly doesn't happen today. Slow process huh? Macro evolution?, I know of scientest that preech with the outmost intensity the theory of evolution and they themselves will still admit this has never been observed, so ....................
WHAT PROOF ARE YOU REFERRING TOO SMART GUY, BECAUSE I ALSO HAVE POOF OF THE JFK ASSINATION.
wow..testy testy r we?
-
How do the religious people on here handle that? ???
(http://webboe.com/logica.jpg)
-
Evolution in a species I totally buy- a bird growing a longer bill because the inscets it hunts have been driven deeper into the trunk of a tree because of climate changes over a period of time. On this basis I totally agree evolution is a fact. As far as a one celled animal becomming a human over millions of years, it never happened and was never and will never be proven- fact
brutal retort.
why do you resist evolution? you do realize much of modern medicine rests upon the assumptions and evidence of evolution. That evolution or macroevolution for your delight can be witnessed in bacterium and viral microbes. Antibiotic resistant strains emerge from this phenomenon such that the original infectious agent bears little to the original offender. this is the quickest and easiest example of evolution one can find, generations can be hyper-reproduced to afford us a multitude of generations in a short period, look at tuberculosis and its evolving pattern.
read some science.
-
We evolved from Neanderthal and Cromagnans. We have proof they were of the species homo sapiens, but I'm sure Adam wasn't.
-
We evolved from Neanderthal and Cromagnans. We have proof they were of the species homo sapiens, but I'm sure Adam wasn't.
Huh?
We definitely didn't evolve from Neanderthals.
They existed during the lifetime of our own species therefore cannot possibly be an ancestor.
Chimps also aren't an ancestor, but we share a common, recent ancestor. In regards to Neanderthals, we also share a common, but even more recent ancestor.
-
Huh?
We definitely didn't evolve from Neanderthals.
They existed during the lifetime of our own species therefore cannot possibly be an ancestor.
Chimps also aren't an ancestor, but we share a common, recent ancestor. In regards to Neanderthals, we also share a common, but even more recent ancestor.
LOL man i cant believe this thread is still going man
Neanderthals are more of a uncle or aunt to us than i direct parent if that makes sense but there are theories out there that say they might have interbreed with cro mangion and are in our lineage today...red hair is thought by some to be a neanderthal trait
Again though believing in evolution doesnt mean you cant believe in God.
-
LOL man i cant believe this thread is still going man
Neanderthals are more of a uncle or aunt to us than i direct parent if that makes sense but there are theories out there that say they might have interbreed with cro mangion and are in our lineage today...red hair is thought by some to be a neanderthal trait
Again though believing in evolution doesnt mean you cant believe in God.
Red hair has been proven not to have been inherited from the Neanderthal gene pool due to the fact that the mutations causing red hair in Homo sapiens and Neanderthals occurs in different places.
-
Red hair has been proven not to have been inherited from the Neanderthal gene pool due to the fact that the mutations causing red hair in Homo sapiens and Neanderthals occurs in different places.
what do you mean by different places?
-
(http://webboe.com/logica.jpg)
1st thing on the internet that made me really lol.. I have to print that out and put it on the desk at work thanks guys
-
what do you mean by different places?
The mutated gene that is responsible for red hair in Neanderthals is not the same as the one causing red hair in humans. If red hair was a trait picked up from Neanderthals then the mutated gene itself would have to be the same.
I'm not saying Neanderthals didn't interbreed or that the inheritance of red hair was once thought to have been acquired by interbreeding between the two. But it's now known that red hair mutated separately between us and Neanderthals.
-
New Insight into the Ecology of the Cambrian Fauna: Evidence for Creation Mounts
By Fuz Rana, Ph.D.
A recent report by one of the world’s leading paleontologists, Richard Fortey, provides compelling evidence that chemoautotrophic symbiosis, a complex ecological relationship between sulfur-oxidizing bacteria and advanced, multicellular marine animals, first appeared close to the time of the Cambrian Explosion.1 This discovery adds to the growing weight of evidence for the supernatural introduction of complex animal life on earth.
The Cambrian “Explosion” is a dramatic event in life’s history taking place around 540 million years ago. Over the course of perhaps less than 2-3 million years, nearly every animal phylum (over 70) ever to exist on earth appeared. Since that time no new animal phyla have been introduced.2,3 Phyla are the categories in the biological classification hierarchy that refer to an organism’s body plan, or architectural design.
In 1986, Simon Conway Morris identified an additional feature of the Cambrian Explosion that has remained troubling for the naturalistic paradigm; namely, that the ecology of the Cambrian fauna resembled that of a modern marine ecology. It includes identifiable predator-prey relationships.4,5 This finding runs counter to what would be expected if the Cambrian “Explosion” were the result of natural processes. Instead of observing a haphazard, loosely-woven ecology, as predicted by the evolutionary paradigm, the Cambrian fauna appear suddenly in the fossil record as a tight-knit ecological community, consistent with a Creation Model for the origin of complex multicellular animals. The new discovery by Richard Fortey of the Natural History Museum in London adds additional support for a fine-tuned, modern Cambrian ecology.
Chemoautotrophic symbiosis is a complex interdependence between advanced marine animals and sulfur-oxidizing bacteria. These bacteria use hydrogen sulfide and other sulfur compounds as an energy source and often employ carbon dioxide as their sole carbon source, converting it into organic nutrients. Sulfur-oxidizing bacteria are found in environments that are low in oxygen and rich in hydrogen sulfide.
A number of multicellular, complex animals also exist in this toxic low oxygen, high sulfur environment through their interactions with sulfur-oxidizing bacteria. These animals feed on the bacteria directly or have modified body-and mouth-parts that allow the cultivation of the bacteria. Also, many of these animals have brood pouches to sequester their young from the toxic milieu until they can establish a symbiotic relationship with the sulfur-oxidizing bacteria.
Based on an understanding of modern-day chemoautotrophic symbiosis, Richard Fortey was able to recognize this type of relationship in the fossil record of Olenids (a family of trilobites) as far back as 505 million years ago, just after the Cambrian “Explosion.”6 These trilobite fossils share morphological features with modern arthropods that rely on chemoautotrophic symbioses and are recovered from deposits low in oxygen and high in sulfide content.
The appearance of this type of complex interrelationship shortly after the Cambrian event is surprising to evolutionists. Substantial anatomical changes (modified mouthparts, gills, body surfaces, reproductive anatomy) must take place all at once for the organism to survive in this toxic environment. Natural processes do not allow for the sudden and highly orchestrated changes necessary for an organism to transition into an environment that demands complex symbiotic relationships for survival. From an evolutionary perspective, this type of transition must happen over exceedingly long periods of time. Reasons to Believe’s Creation Model readily accommodates the discovery of chemoautotrophic symbiosis as far back as 505 million years ago.
-
New Insight into the Ecology of the Cambrian Fauna: Evidence for Creation Mounts
By Fuz Rana, Ph.D.
A recent report by one of the world’s leading paleontologists, Richard Fortey, provides compelling evidence that chemoautotrophic symbiosis, a complex ecological relationship between sulfur-oxidizing bacteria and advanced, multicellular marine animals, first appeared close to the time of the Cambrian Explosion.1 This discovery adds to the growing weight of evidence for the supernatural introduction of complex animal life on earth.
The Cambrian “Explosion” is a dramatic event in life’s history taking place around 540 million years ago. Over the course of perhaps less than 2-3 million years, nearly every animal phylum (over 70) ever to exist on earth appeared. Since that time no new animal phyla have been introduced.2,3 Phyla are the categories in the biological classification hierarchy that refer to an organism’s body plan, or architectural design.
In 1986, Simon Conway Morris identified an additional feature of the Cambrian Explosion that has remained troubling for the naturalistic paradigm; namely, that the ecology of the Cambrian fauna resembled that of a modern marine ecology. It includes identifiable predator-prey relationships.4,5 This finding runs counter to what would be expected if the Cambrian “Explosion” were the result of natural processes. Instead of observing a haphazard, loosely-woven ecology, as predicted by the evolutionary paradigm, the Cambrian fauna appear suddenly in the fossil record as a tight-knit ecological community, consistent with a Creation Model for the origin of complex multicellular animals. The new discovery by Richard Fortey of the Natural History Museum in London adds additional support for a fine-tuned, modern Cambrian ecology.
Chemoautotrophic symbiosis is a complex interdependence between advanced marine animals and sulfur-oxidizing bacteria. These bacteria use hydrogen sulfide and other sulfur compounds as an energy source and often employ carbon dioxide as their sole carbon source, converting it into organic nutrients. Sulfur-oxidizing bacteria are found in environments that are low in oxygen and rich in hydrogen sulfide.
A number of multicellular, complex animals also exist in this toxic low oxygen, high sulfur environment through their interactions with sulfur-oxidizing bacteria. These animals feed on the bacteria directly or have modified body-and mouth-parts that allow the cultivation of the bacteria. Also, many of these animals have brood pouches to sequester their young from the toxic milieu until they can establish a symbiotic relationship with the sulfur-oxidizing bacteria.
Based on an understanding of modern-day chemoautotrophic symbiosis, Richard Fortey was able to recognize this type of relationship in the fossil record of Olenids (a family of trilobites) as far back as 505 million years ago, just after the Cambrian “Explosion.”6 These trilobite fossils share morphological features with modern arthropods that rely on chemoautotrophic symbioses and are recovered from deposits low in oxygen and high in sulfide content.
The appearance of this type of complex interrelationship shortly after the Cambrian event is surprising to evolutionists. Substantial anatomical changes (modified mouthparts, gills, body surfaces, reproductive anatomy) must take place all at once for the organism to survive in this toxic environment. Natural processes do not allow for the sudden and highly orchestrated changes necessary for an organism to transition into an environment that demands complex symbiotic relationships for survival. From an evolutionary perspective, this type of transition must happen over exceedingly long periods of time. Reasons to Believe’s Creation Model readily accommodates the discovery of chemoautotrophic symbiosis as far back as 505 million years ago.
Aren't you a Jebus Freak Young Earth Creationist?
-
Colossus_500, nice try. ;)
source of the article: http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#cambrian_fauna
"international and interdenominational science-faith think tank providing powerful new reasons from science to believe in Jesus Christ."
let's take a look at this Fazale "Fuz" Rana guy:
http://www.reasons.org/about/biographies.shtml#fazale_rana
"Research in biochemistry provided Fuz with the initial evidence that life must have been created. Although he recognized the work of a designer, he did not know the designer's identity. A personal challenge daring him to read the Bible revealed the scriptural evidence that the God of the Bible is the Creator." ::)
-
Colossus_500, nice try. ;)
source of the article: http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#cambrian_fauna
"international and interdenominational science-faith think tank providing powerful new reasons from science to believe in Jesus Christ."
let's take a look at this Fazale "Fuz" Rana guy:
http://www.reasons.org/about/biographies.shtml#fazale_rana
"Research in biochemistry provided Fuz with the initial evidence that life must have been created. Although he recognized the work of a designer, he did not know the designer's identity. A personal challenge daring him to read the Bible revealed the scriptural evidence that the God of the Bible is the Creator." ::)
Muhahahhahahaha.......
-
Colossus_500, nice try. ;)
source of the article: http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#cambrian_fauna
"international and interdenominational science-faith think tank providing powerful new reasons from science to believe in Jesus Christ."
let's take a look at this Fazale "Fuz" Rana guy:
http://www.reasons.org/about/biographies.shtml#fazale_rana
"Research in biochemistry provided Fuz with the initial evidence that life must have been created. Although he recognized the work of a designer, he did not know the designer's identity. A personal challenge daring him to read the Bible revealed the scriptural evidence that the God of the Bible is the Creator." ::)
What's wrong with this?
-
What's wrong with this?
As usual Jebus, the 'wrong' about this is the fact that these are non-scientific reasons for believing Bible Bullshit. None of the evidence suggests that the biblical feces is true; he got there by 'faith'.
-
What's wrong with this?
the article that Colossus_500 posted has a religious agenda. It would never be published in a peer-reviewed journal or science magazine.
-
the article that Colossus_500 posted has a religious agenda. It would never be published in a peer-reviewed journal or science magazine.
Your avatar is awesome and you are the fucking man.
-
Your avatar is awesome and you are the fucking man.
thank you ;D
-
New Insight into the Ecology of the Cambrian Fauna: Evidence for Creation Mounts
The appearance of this type of complex interrelationship shortly after the Cambrian event is surprising to evolutionists. Substantial anatomical changes (modified mouthparts, gills, body surfaces, reproductive anatomy) must take place all at once for the organism to survive in this toxic environment. Natural processes do not allow for the sudden and highly orchestrated changes necessary for an organism to transition into an environment that demands complex symbiotic relationships for survival. From an evolutionary perspective, this type of transition must happen over exceedingly long periods of time. Reasons to Believe’s Creation Model readily accommodates the discovery of chemoautotrophic symbiosis as far back as 505 million years ago.
prove that this has to occur. Untrue drivel.
the cambrian explosion is a lengthy event i often think the religious mistake it for a spontaneous eruption, millions of years is quite a while.
-
prove that this has to occur. Untrue drivel.
the cambrian explosion is a lengthy event i often think the religious mistake it for a spontaneous eruption, millions of years is quite a while.
Man you guys make laugh, the so called scientest, smart evolutionist obviously because anyone that believes in creation is autromatically dumb, always believe something to take place evry so many thousans or millions of years until something comes along and makes them look stupid, for example mount st helens erupted in the fifties and the main guy studying it wrote a report saying "This valcano erupsts evry 1500 years and not even 50 years later it eruptet again, lol ::)
-
Man you guys make laugh, the so called scientest, smart evolutionist obviously because anyone that believes in creation is autromatically dumb, always believe something to take place evry so many thousans or millions of years until something comes along and makes them look stupid, for example mount st helens erupted in the fifties and the main guy studying it wrote a report saying "This valcano erupsts evry 1500 years and not even 50 years later it eruptet again, lol ::)
if that dont prove god is real I dont know what does :-\
-
Man you guys make laugh, the so called scientest, smart evolutionist obviously because anyone that believes in creation is autromatically dumb, always believe something to take place evry so many thousans or millions of years until something comes along and makes them look stupid, for example mount st helens erupted in the fifties and the main guy studying it wrote a report saying "This valcano erupsts evry 1500 years and not even 50 years later it eruptet again, lol ::)
This is some of the most unintelligible gibberish you have produced to date Onetime. I have difficulty evincing the slightest content from it. :-\
-
This is some of the most unintelligible gibberish you have produced to date Onetime. I have difficulty evincing the slightest content from it. :-\
lol, ;D, Ya but the funny thing is no matter what any creationist say we will always be made fun of right decide.
-
lol, ;D, Ya but the funny thing is no matter what any creationist say we will always be made fun of right decide.
yes because you are patently false
-
prove it- that's how i handle it. I have a book from the God who says he created us. But i guess that's not good enough for some people.
I've never heard the term The "fact" of evolution.
There never has, no will there ever be, a overall consensus from science on evolution.
Evolution is both theory and fact. This statement, or something similar, is frequently seen in biological literature. The point of this statement is to differentiate the concept of the "fact of evolution", namely the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, from the "theory of evolution", namely the current scientific explanation of how those changes came about.
References:
^ a b Moran, Laurence (1993-01-22). "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory" (html) (in english). Talk.origins. Retrieved on 2007-10-18.
^ a b c d Gould, Stephen Jay (1981-05-01). "Evolution as Fact and Theory". Discover 2 (5): 34–37. Reprinted in:
Vetter, Herbert F. (ed.) (1982). Speak Out Against The New Right. Beacon Press. ISBN 0807004863.
Gould, Stephen Jay (1994-04-01). Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. ISBN 0393017168.
^ a b c Muller, H. J. (1959). "One hundred years without Darwin are enough". School Science and Mathematics 59: 304–305. Reprinted in:
Zetterberg, Peter (ed.) (1983-05-01). Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy. Phoenix AZ: ORYX Press. ISBN 0897740610.
^ a b c Campbell, Neil A.; Reece, Jane B. (2002-02-05). Biology 6th ed.. Benjamin Cummings, 1175. ISBN 0805366245.
^ Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1973-03-01). "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". American Biology Teacher 35. Reprinted in:
Zetterberg, Peter (ed.) (1983-05-01). Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy. Phoenix AZ: ORYX Press. ISBN 0897740610.
^ a b Lenski, Richard E. (2000). "Evolution: Fact and Theory" (html) (in english). American Institute of Biological Sciences. Retrieved on 2007-10-18.
^ a b Mayr, Ernst. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-89666-1.