Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Ganuvanx on June 06, 2009, 02:43:17 PM

Title: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Ganuvanx on June 06, 2009, 02:43:17 PM
There seems to be a lot of Christian religion bashing by evolutionists these days. A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set beliefs that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or ultimate truth.  Evolution fits the definition of religion in that evolutionists believe in an ultimate truth that we are constantly evolving to something better and we are therefore in a way our own gods. I came up with this diagram to help evolutionists understand they are actually practitioners of religion even though they don’t understand it. Evolutionists must agree that evolution according to their beliefs, doesn’t stop. I would like these guys to explain to me what they think they are evolving into according to their religion. This diagram is as close as I could figure out.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Butterbean on June 07, 2009, 12:33:08 PM
I would like these guys to explain to me what they think they are evolving into according to their religion.


Very interesting question!
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Deicide on June 07, 2009, 12:35:09 PM
There seems to be a lot of Christian religion bashing by evolutionists these days. A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set beliefs that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or ultimate truth.  Evolution fits the definition of religion in that evolutionists believe in an ultimate truth that we are constantly evolving to something better and we are therefore in a way our own gods. I came up with this diagram to help evolutionists understand they are actually practitioners of religion even though they don’t understand it. Evolutionists must agree that evolution according to their beliefs, doesn’t stop. I would like these guys to explain to me what they think they are evolving into according to their religion. This diagram is as close as I could figure out.


Evolution has no direction as it is adapative in nature. Who knows? We do know that evolution has taken place and continues to do so. I don't practise any religion thank you.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: OzmO on June 07, 2009, 06:27:48 PM
In 100,000 years we will have evolved to merge with machines.

Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: gcb on June 07, 2009, 08:58:36 PM
There seems to be a lot of Christian religion bashing by evolutionists these days. A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set beliefs that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or ultimate truth.  Evolution fits the definition of religion in that evolutionists believe in an ultimate truth that we are constantly evolving to something better and we are therefore in a way our own gods. I came up with this diagram to help evolutionists understand they are actually practitioners of religion even though they don’t understand it. Evolutionists must agree that evolution according to their beliefs, doesn’t stop. I would like these guys to explain to me what they think they are evolving into according to their religion. This diagram is as close as I could figure out.


No evolution does not say that - evolution has NO pre-determined path - we can evolve (into something better) or devolve. Evolution simply dictates that those creatures which are best suited to survival will continue to thrive while natural selection will eliminate those that are unsuited. When elements of natural selection are taken out of the equation we lose those traits (ie. are ability to withstand snake bite is much less than other mammals because intellectually we learnt to avoid snakes).
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Butterbean on June 09, 2009, 01:28:54 PM
In 100,000 years we will have evolved to merge with machines.


OzmO are you being serious?  If so, what do you envision regarding this?
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: mitchyboy on June 09, 2009, 03:54:06 PM
OzmO are you being serious?  If so, what do you envision regarding this?
I tend 2 agree some what. Look around, we have pacemakers, artificial hearts, hearing aids, working on artificial eyes.
I think if we don't blow ourselves up first, we very well could see a lot more of these types of " mechanical evolutions "
if you will.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: OzmO on June 09, 2009, 07:16:21 PM
OzmO are you being serious?  If so, what do you envision regarding this?

I am being serious.  "IF" evolution is what it is billed to be, in addition to what mitchyboy says, we are in a mechanical, electronic environment bathed in radio waves.  At some point, thousands and thousands of years from now, we will evolve to merge with our machines.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: tonymctones on June 09, 2009, 08:28:17 PM
There seems to be a lot of Christian religion bashing by evolutionists these days. A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set beliefs that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or ultimate truth.  Evolution fits the definition of religion in that evolutionists believe in an ultimate truth that we are constantly evolving to something better and we are therefore in a way our own gods. I came up with this diagram to help evolutionists understand they are actually practitioners of religion even though they don’t understand it. Evolutionists must agree that evolution according to their beliefs, doesn’t stop. I would like these guys to explain to me what they think they are evolving into according to their religion. This diagram is as close as I could figure out.

false there is not better or worse in terms of evolution only better or less suited for the enviroment. Like deicide said evolution has no path, something that you might consider a undesireable property might end up being whats best suited for the enviroment. Again evolution doesnt say that we are evolving towards a defined end it says whats best suited for the enviroment will have the best chance to pass on its genes.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Deicide on June 10, 2009, 07:57:22 AM
For those interested, check out Ray Kurzweil's singularity theory:

Quote
An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense 'intuitive linear' view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century—it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The 'returns,' such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to the Singularity—technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.

Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Joel_A on June 10, 2009, 06:54:50 PM
Computer technology 'doubles' every 18 months (according to Dr. Michio Kaku), and I believe him. Just look at laptops of today and compare it to about 2 yrs ago. Now a dual core processor is 'slow' compared to something like the Intel i7.  Also, my cellphone from last year (Samsung Rant) is freaking obsolete compared to these new smartphones out.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Lord Humungous on June 11, 2009, 06:25:14 AM
For those interested, check out Ray Kurzweil's singularity theory:



Some how Rays company Kurzweil instruments teeters on the edge of bankruptcy  ::) go figure!
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: liberalismo on June 12, 2009, 05:04:40 PM
Evolution is about reaching an equilibrium with the environment. If a species has no "need" to evolve and no pressures are on it from the environment then it doesn't change much. If there are a lot of pressures from the environment then it changes a lot and evolves a lot.

Examples: The crocodile not changing much over millions of years. Other species change a lot in a few thousand years.

Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Eisenherz on June 12, 2009, 06:34:24 PM
Evolution is about reaching an equilibrium with the environment. If a species has no "need" to evolve and no pressures are on it from the environment then it doesn't change much. If there are a lot of pressures from the environment then it changes a lot and evolves a lot.

Examples: The crocodile not changing much over millions of years. Other species change a lot in a few thousand years.



Yes adapation of species to environment does occur, but species dont change/evolve into another type of species to suit their environment LOL.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: liberalismo on June 13, 2009, 01:10:40 PM
Yes adapation of species to environment does occur, but species dont change/evolve into another type of species to suit their environment LOL.



They change as much as is needed, and then some. There is no limit to how much change can occur in a population. "Species" is just a term humans invented to discern types of organisms. It doesn't mean anything for the natural world, and definitely isn't some 'limit'.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: tonymctones on June 14, 2009, 06:53:11 PM

They change as much as is needed, and then some. There is no limit to how much change can occur in a population. "Species" is just a term humans invented to discern types of organisms. It doesn't mean anything for the natural world, and definitely isn't some 'limit'.
thats exactly right.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: liberalismo on June 16, 2009, 12:42:17 PM
thats exactly right.



Some people think that somehow adaptation stops all of a sudden right before a population becomes a new species. This doesn't make sense. There is no built in limit to how much change can occur, and EVEN IF there were, there is no reason why that built in limit couldn't be done away with by evolution. Evolution occurs on the most basic level of life, the genetic level, and the genetics determine everything including limitations. So essentially limits to how much change can occur in evolution can NOT exist in the long run since they could easily be altered by more mutations and natural selection.

The only limits that I can think of would be basic physics. Some things aren't possible for organic life. But then again, evolution always surprises. Some of the most fascinating traits have evolved in certain species to give them an advantage in living, hunting, breeding, etc.

Evolution NEVER stops, just slows down sometimes. Even humans are evolving, but we don't know what they are evolving into. Possible answers:

Humans are evolving to be immune to health problems associated with obesity.
Humans are evolving to be less physically endowed.
Various ailments both mental and physical spread through human gene pools due to technology allowing them to survive longer and breed more.


Humans, in general, are becoming inferior because their technology removes the need to have all sorts of attributes necessary to survive. Today, even the most genetically handicapped people still live long and breed.


This brings in new issues of Eugenics, which is another topic all together.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Hedgehog on June 18, 2009, 07:45:14 PM
Evolutionists must agree that evolution according to their beliefs, doesn’t stop. I would like these guys to explain to me what they think they are evolving into according to their religion. This diagram is as close as I could figure out.


Evolving into?

Why would there be an end of evolution?

Because that is in essence what you're suggesting.


And I'm not evolving into anything.

I'm me.

And whatever our ancestors will look like, or how they will evolve, I cannot say.

You can see small changes in mankind everywhere, adaptations.

From what I was told by a scienctist pygmees are short because that is an adaptation. Dutch people are tall - an adaptation.

Some ethinicities that have been living with cows have developed a tolerance to milk - others are lactose intolerant - like most black people.


Massai male negroes have average sized cocks measuring 10 inches. Because traditionally the Massais didn't wear any clothes and the cocks would apparently be used to attract women.


So there are differences already.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Joel_A on June 18, 2009, 08:14:53 PM
Evolving into?

Why would there be an end of evolution?

Because that is in essence what you're suggesting.


And I'm not evolving into anything.

I'm me.

And whatever our ancestors will look like, or how they will evolve, I cannot say.

You can see small changes in mankind everywhere, adaptations.

From what I was told by a scienctist pygmees are short because that is an adaptation. Dutch people are tall - an adaptation.

Some ethinicities that have been living with cows have developed a tolerance to milk - others are lactose intolerant - like most black people.


Massai male negroes have average sized cocks measuring 10 inches. Because traditionally the Massais didn't wear any clothes and the cocks would apparently be used to attract women.


So there are differences already.

why do asians have small penises then?
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Hedgehog on June 18, 2009, 08:31:13 PM
why do asians have small penises then?

I have no idea.

The scientist told me about the Massais.

Why the Japs are hung like they are - I wouldn't know.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: ToxicAvenger on June 20, 2009, 08:36:08 AM
There seems to be a lot of Christian religion bashing by evolutionists these days.

firstly this post misses right off the mark by assuming that Christianity is the correct religion...you wont know till u die..its assuming that your parents being Christians...were in fact right...and ya know what they say about assumptions :-\

for all you know it could be Judaism or Islam or hell Hinduism

2 >  asking people what they r evolving into is like asking a pupa to speculate what it'll turn into or what kinda colours will the, to be butterfly have...
you dont know if tomorrow earth will get hit by radiation from a massive supernova and all humans except those that can tolerate radiation (VERY dark skinned) will be the only survivours...hense evolution thru survival of the fittest..given the conditions provided
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Nordic Superman on June 26, 2009, 01:55:20 AM
The people suggesting we will merge with machines; do you think it will be a natural biological merging? If so, given my understanding of evolution - what exactly is the selection pressure? Remember, almost every human can procreate in this day and age, the least fit, the fat and the unsuccessful... from a natural selection standpoint they are all as successful in regards to passing genes on to the next generation. Un-educated undesirables even have a higher birthrate and therefore a monopoly on the human gene pool... so again I ask, where is the selection pressure to merge with machines?
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: liberalismo on June 26, 2009, 08:27:17 AM
The people suggesting we will merge with machines; do you think it will be a natural biological merging? If so, given my understanding of evolution - what exactly is the selection pressure? Remember, almost every human can procreate in this day and age, the least fit, the fat and the unsuccessful... from a natural selection standpoint they are all as successful in regards to passing genes on to the next generation. Un-educated undesirables even have a higher birthrate and therefore a monopoly on the human gene pool... so again I ask, where is the selection pressure to merge with machines?


It won't be natural. Humans will merge themselves with machines gradually over time.

First prosthetic limbs.
Next brain implants to increase memory or communication or processing speed.
Next replacement organs.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Nordic Superman on June 27, 2009, 11:15:24 AM

It won't be natural. Humans will merge themselves with machines gradually over time.

First prosthetic limbs.
Next brain implants to increase memory or communication or processing speed.
Next replacement organs.

so it's not biological evolution leading to speciation, it's the progression of technology.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: liberalismo on June 28, 2009, 09:19:46 PM
so it's not biological evolution leading to speciation, it's the progression of technology.

In humans...

In humans there won't really be a speciation but rather changes brought from technology.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Nordic Superman on June 29, 2009, 01:10:08 AM
In humans...

In humans there won't really be a speciation but rather changes brought from technology.

It's not evolutionary at all then in the sense of specialisation and natural selective pressures. It's almost exclusively society and technological evolution.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Joel_A on July 02, 2009, 07:52:59 AM
It is already starting.  :)
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Government_Controlled on August 12, 2009, 06:39:01 AM
In humans...

In humans there won't really be a speciation but rather changes brought from technology.  


It's not evolutionary at all then in the sense of specialisation and natural selective pressures. It's almost exclusively society and technological evolution.



So does this mean humans are the exception to the rule of evolution? In other words, out of all the evolutionary events that are occurring, which if I'm perceiving what evolution teaches accurately, it (evolution) is an ongoing process, eh? If so, according to these post, humans are the exception to the rule. We don't evolve, is this right? Humans can only make tech. advances/adaptions? Again, if so, why is the human family NOT subjected to the pressures of evolution?



CG/DEA_AGENT
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Necrosis on August 12, 2009, 09:19:05 AM



So does this mean humans are the exception to the rule of evolution? In other words, out of all the evolutionary events that are occurring, which if I'm perceiving what evolution teaches accurately, it (evolution) is an ongoing process, eh? If so, according to these post, humans are the exception to the rule. We don't evolve, is this right? Humans can only make tech. advances/adaptions? Again, if so, why is the human family NOT subjected to the pressures of evolution?



CG/DEA_AGENT


we are, that is not what they are saying. We have devised strategies to avoid sickness, predation etc... we dont need to evolve much as our envoironment puts little pressue on us. Our brains may become bigger etc.. something along those lines, but we recieve little physical stress. We dont need camoflauge to avoid predators, water conservation strategies. Hell myopia is rampant in our society which should eliminate some, but we invented glasses allowin those to flourish.

technology provides the greatest stress. Everything evolves
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Government_Controlled on August 12, 2009, 03:19:02 PM

we are, that is not what they are saying. We have devised strategies to avoid sickness, predation etc... we dont need to evolve much as our envoironment puts little pressue on us. Our brains may become bigger etc.. something along those lines, but we recieve little physical stress. We dont need camoflauge to avoid predators, water conservation strategies. Hell myopia is rampant in our society which should eliminate some, but we invented glasses allowin those to flourish.

Yes, but isn't this achieved thru our own thinking processes? I thought evolution occurred without thought process?


Quote
technology provides the greatest stress. Everything evolves

I'm not sure if we are talking micro or macro here. Again, I thought evolution teaches that no thought process is involved. Just asking, friend.



GC/DEA_AGENT
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Necrosis on August 12, 2009, 07:51:08 PM
Yes, but isn't this achieved thru our own thinking processes? I thought evolution occurred without thought process?


I'm not sure if we are talking micro or macro here. Again, I thought evolution teaches that no thought process is involved. Just asking, friend.



GC/DEA_AGENT

im wiped on xanax right now so forgive me but i dont understand your questions. because of the evolution of the prefrontal cortex we can effciently keep things neutral, and avoid many pressures other species do not have. Intellectually we will grow more the physically i assume. Increase in brain matter, more glial, astrocytes, less relying etc...

Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Government_Controlled on August 13, 2009, 04:54:11 AM
im wiped on xanax right now so forgive me but i dont understand your questions. because of the evolution of the prefrontal cortex we can effciently keep things neutral, and avoid many pressures other species do not have. Intellectually we will grow more the physically i assume. Increase in brain matter, more glial, astrocytes, less relying etc...



NP. Let me throw another question at ya. Are the apes still evolving into humans? If not, why did evolution stop. What casued evolution in that case to stop apes from turning into humans.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Necrosis on August 14, 2009, 01:01:34 PM
NP. Let me throw another question at ya. Are the apes still evolving into humans? If not, why did evolution stop. What casued evolution in that case to stop apes from turning into humans.

i think you should learn about evolution, this question comes up over and over and is somewhat silly.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Government_Controlled on August 14, 2009, 05:13:07 PM
i think you should learn about evolution, this question comes up over and over and is somewhat silly.

Well, Necrosis that's why I'm asking the question. To learn. Am I entitled to make at least one mistake, as well? At this point, why can't someone explain this question? It should be easy for evolutionist to do so.


BTW, if I'm wrong, so be it. I can take it. At least show me my error. Isn't that what a reasonable person should do?



GC/DEA_AGENT
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: haider on August 14, 2009, 05:27:45 PM
Well, Necrosis that's why I'm asking the question. To learn. Am I entitled to make at least one mistake, as well? At this point, why can't someone explain this question? It should be easy for evolutionist to do so.


BTW, if I'm wrong, so be it. I can take it. At least show me my error. Isn't that what a reasonable person should do?



GC/DEA_AGENT
with all due respect, perhaps you should research the topic a little bit before partaking in an argument about it? I think it is reasonable to not be handed all knowledge on a platter, and spoon-fed to you  :P

Evolution is a science, and demands the kind of attention and study as any other science.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Government_Controlled on August 14, 2009, 05:33:46 PM
with all due respect, perhaps you should research the topic a little bit before partaking in an argument about it? I think it is reasonable to not be handed all knowledge on a platter, and spoon-fed to you  :P

Evolution is a science, and demands the kind of attention and study as any other science.


I have studied. Never came across the answer to this.

BTW, how is this ALL knowledge about evolution?  ???




GC/DEA_AGENT
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: haider on August 14, 2009, 05:37:22 PM

I have studied. Never came across the answer to this.

BTW, how is this ALL knowlegde about evoultion?  ???




GC/DEA_AGENT
As polesmoker Necrosis already mentioned, you wouldn't be asking the question if you understood how evolution worked. But if you must demand an answer: We didn't evolve from monkeys. We belong to different evolutionary branches with a common ancestor. Is that good enough?

Regarding the second comment: patience my friend.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Government_Controlled on August 14, 2009, 05:41:39 PM
As polesmoker Necrosis already mentioned, you wouldn't be asking the question if you understood how evolution worked. But if you must demand an answer: We didn't evolve from monkeys. We belong to different evolutionary branches with a common ancestor. Is that good enough?

Thank you! That wasn't so hard, now was it? ;D  When did that (that is, monkey's NOT being our ancestors) change? What are these evolutionary branches?

Quote
Regarding the second comment: patience my friend.

I've got plenty of it, I'm ready!  :)

Also, with abiogensis never happening, where does that leave evolution? Now, I'm just asking, so take it easy on me, k?

Another also, why isn't the human family evolving into some other species? What caused it to halt? We continue to die off without any hint of progressing into some higher being. Now, once again, take it easy on me, I'm just trying to learn here.  :)



GC/DEA_AGENT
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: haider on August 14, 2009, 07:01:01 PM
Thank you! That wasn't so hard, now was it? ;D  When did that (that is, monkey's NOT being our ancestors) change? What are these evolutionary branches?

I've got plenty of it, I'm ready!  :)

Also, with abiogensis never happening, where does that leave evolution? Now, I'm just asking, so take it easy on me, k?

Another also, why isn't the human family evolving into some other species? What caused it to halt? We continue to die off without any hint of progressing into some higher being. Now, once again, take it easy on me, I'm just trying to learn here.  :)



GC/DEA_AGENT
No problem. My friend, this info is available and is easily accessible. In fact, there is a wikipedia article dedicated to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution)

Likewise there's other sources: TV docu's, textbooks, etc that are easily available for those interested in learning about the subject.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: haider on August 14, 2009, 07:16:05 PM

Another also, why isn't the human family evolving into some other species? What caused it to halt? We continue to die off without any hint of progressing into some higher being. Now, once again, take it easy on me, I'm just trying to learn here.  :)



GC/DEA_AGENT
Nothing caused evolution to halt, it is an ongoing process that is too slow for us to observe in the short term; our lifespans are too long for that. Rapidly reproducing organisms like bacteria that are easily subjected to changing environments through human intervention can be observed for "evolutionary changes". An understanding of evolutionary processes is necessary in modern medicine because of the ability of bacteria to adapt to antibiotics- I'm sure you've heard of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

I'm not the best person to answer these questions; I only have a surface understanding of biology, let alone a concentration of it like evolutionary science. Necrosis and others are much more educated on the issue.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Government_Controlled on August 14, 2009, 07:18:58 PM
Haider, here is my conclusion of my studies of evoultion vs creation from some years ago. And would like for you and Necroisis to analyize it, and let me know what's in error as well as what has changed in the study of evoultion. I really would like your input. No kidding!  :)




Predictions of        Predictions of        Facts as Found in
Evolution Model     Creation Model        the Real World
---------------  ---------------      -------------------


________________________ ________________________ ___________            
Life evolved from     Life comes only       (1) Life comes only
nonlife by chance    from previous life;    from previous life;
chemical evolution   originally created     (2) no way to form
(spontaneous          by an intelligent      complex genetic code
generation)             Creator                  by chance
________________________ ________________________ ___________
Fossils should show:  Fossils should show:   Fossils show:
(1) simple life           (1) complex forms      (1) sudden appearance
forms originating       suddenly appearing    of complex life in
gradually;                in great variety;        great variety;
(2) transitional         (2) gaps separating    (2) each new kind
forms linking            major kinds; no          separate from
previous ones          linking forms              previous kinds;no linking forms
________________________ ________________________ ___________                                            
New kinds arising     No new kinds              No new kinds
gradually;               gradually appearing;    gradually appearing,
beginnings of          no incomplete bones    although many
incomplete bones     or organs, but all        varieties; no
and organs in          parts completely         incompletely formed
various transitional   formed                      bones or organs
stages
________________________ ________________________ ___________
Mutations: net        Mutations harmful to    Small mutations
result beneficial;     complex life; do           harmful, large ones
generate new         not result in                lethal; never result
features                anything new               in anything new
________________________ ________________________ ___________  
Origin of                 Civilization                    Civilization
civilization              contemporaneous with    appears with man;
gradual, arising out  man; complex to            any cave dwellers
of crude, brutish      begin with                    were contemporary
beginnings                                                with civilization
________________________ ________________________ ____________
Language evolved      Language                    Language
from simple animal      contemporaneous with  contemporaneous with
sounds into complex   man; ancient               man; ancient ones
modern languages      languages complex        often more complex
                              and complete               than modern
________________________ ________________________ ____________
Appearance of man    Appearance of man        Oldest written
millions of years        about 6,000 years          records date back
ago                        ago                              only about 5,000
                                                               years
________________________ ________________________ ____________
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Government_Controlled on August 14, 2009, 07:24:08 PM
Nothing caused evolution to halt, it is an ongoing process that is too slow for us to observe in the short term; our lifespans are too long for that.



Hey, thanks for taking the time out for me, I really do appreciate it, epsecially within a civil manner!


I understand your point. However, I thought according to evolutionist man is millions of years old. How long does it take?




GC/DEA_AGENT
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Government_Controlled on August 14, 2009, 09:30:31 PM
Rapidly reproducing organisms like bacteria that are easily subjected to changing environments through human intervention can be observed for "evolutionary changes". An understanding of evolutionary processes is necessary in modern medicine because of the ability of bacteria to adapt to antibiotics.


But they still end up bacteria, right? Or did the bacteria evolve into something else/kind?




DEA_AGENT
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: liberalismo on August 21, 2009, 09:51:07 PM
Haider, here is my conclusion of my studies of evoultion vs creation from some years ago. And would like for you and Necroisis to analyize it, and let me know what's in error as well as what has changed in the study of evoultion. I really would like your input. No kidding!  :)




Predictions of        Predictions of        Facts as Found in
Evolution Model     Creation Model        the Real World
---------------  ---------------      -------------------


________________________ ________________________ ___________            
Life evolved from     Life comes only       (1) Life comes only
nonlife by chance    from previous life;    from previous life;
chemical evolution   originally created     (2) no way to form
(spontaneous          by an intelligent      complex genetic code
generation)             Creator                  by chance
________________________ ________________________ ___________
Fossils should show:  Fossils should show:   Fossils show:
(1) simple life           (1) complex forms      (1) sudden appearance
forms originating       suddenly appearing    of complex life in
gradually;                in great variety;        great variety;
(2) transitional         (2) gaps separating    (2) each new kind
forms linking            major kinds; no          separate from
previous ones          linking forms              previous kinds;no linking forms
________________________ ________________________ ___________                                            
New kinds arising     No new kinds              No new kinds
gradually;               gradually appearing;    gradually appearing,
beginnings of          no incomplete bones    although many
incomplete bones     or organs, but all        varieties; no
and organs in          parts completely         incompletely formed
various transitional   formed                      bones or organs
stages
________________________ ________________________ ___________
Mutations: net        Mutations harmful to    Small mutations
result beneficial;     complex life; do           harmful, large ones
generate new         not result in                lethal; never result
features                anything new               in anything new
________________________ ________________________ ___________  
Origin of                 Civilization                    Civilization
civilization              contemporaneous with    appears with man;
gradual, arising out  man; complex to            any cave dwellers
of crude, brutish      begin with                    were contemporary
beginnings                                                with civilization
________________________ ________________________ ____________
Language evolved      Language                    Language
from simple animal      contemporaneous with  contemporaneous with
sounds into complex   man; ancient               man; ancient ones
modern languages      languages complex        often more complex
                              and complete               than modern
________________________ ________________________ ____________
Appearance of man    Appearance of man        Oldest written
millions of years        about 6,000 years          records date back
ago                        ago                              only about 5,000
                                                               years
________________________ ________________________ ____________


Essentially all of your "in the real world" is wrong. The last one is right, but it doesn't disagree with Evolution since humans didn't always have writing, and especially not non-homo sapiens.
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: ToxicAvenger on August 22, 2009, 07:05:41 AM
Evolution is a process of changing to adapt to surroundings...

you mistakingly assume that there is an end goal...the process in itself dictates that there is no end goal....

we aren't evolving into a more perfect godlike state....we r merely adapting to a changing environment...whatever that change may be
Title: Re: Question for Evolutionists
Post by: Necrosis on August 22, 2009, 07:33:31 AM

Essentially all of your "in the real world" is wrong. The last one is right, but it doesn't disagree with Evolution since humans didn't always have writing, and especially not non-homo sapiens.

pretty much all his predictions of the creation model make no sense, why does the creation model predict only harmful mutations? what predictions can you make about somethign you can know nothing about. Also, why would the prediction life comes from life be correct? wouldn't the creator keep creating, why does he create the first but leave propogation to evolution? Seems like the opposite would be true.


also, where does this creator create, who is the creator, where does he live, how does he create etc... you cannot make predictions without testable hypothesis. Mere conjecture in that chart.